Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs. operator families - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs. operator families
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoahuL6iEWCxQX7xWMx4=7COAbGrH0rUFsxoVqpKtG+XLw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs. operator families  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Responses Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs. operator families  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs. operator families  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> New version that repairs a defective test case.

Committed.  I don't find this to be particularly good style:

+       for (i = 0; i < old_natts && ret; i++)
+               ret = (!IsPolymorphicType(get_opclass_input_type(classObjectId[i
+                          irel->rd_att->attrs[i]->atttypid == typeObjectId[i]);

...but I am not sure whether we have any formal policy against it, so
I just committed it as-is for now.  I would have surrounded the loop
with an if (ret) block and written the body of the loop as if
(condition) { ret = false; break; }.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Marko Kreen
Date:
Subject: Re: GUC_REPORT for protocol tunables was: Re: Optimize binary serialization format of arrays with fixed size elements
Next
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: Re: GUC_REPORT for protocol tunables was: Re: Optimize binary serialization format of arrays with fixed size elements