Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS]path toward faster partition pruning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS]path toward faster partition pruning
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobvXEVEe+0aDKtvhDd1dxE2ApxTzGumXei+U3mmce06GA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS]path toward faster partition pruning  (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:30 PM, David Rowley
<david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Instead, can you make it:
>
> if (keys->n_eqkeys > 0 || keys->n_minkeys > 0 ||
>     keys->n_maxkeys > 0 || n_keynullness > 0)
>     return true;
>
> return false;

Or better yet:

return (keys->n_eqkeys > 0 || keys->n_minkeys > 0 ||
    keys->n_maxkeys > 0 || n_keynullness > 0);

It's not really necessary to write if (some condition is true) return
true; return false when you can just write return (boolean-valued
condition).

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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alexander Kuzmenkov
Date:
Subject: Re: Rangejoin rebased
Next
From: Corey Huinker
Date:
Subject: Re: CREATE ROUTINE MAPPING