Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs. operator families

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mi ene 25 17:32:49 -0300 2012:
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)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; }.

> I find that code way too clever.

Not only is that code spectacularly unreadable, but has nobody noticed
that this commit broke the buildfarm?

regards, tom lane