| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean |
| Date: | 2015-08-12 23:03:50 |
| Message-ID: | 29719.1439420630@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2015-08-12 18:52:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Looks OK to me, except I wonder why you did this
>>
>> #define TRIGGER_FIRED_FOR_ROW(event) \
>> - ((event) & TRIGGER_EVENT_ROW)
>> + (((event) & TRIGGER_EVENT_ROW) == TRIGGER_EVENT_ROW)
>>
>> rather than != 0. That way doesn't look either more efficient or
>> more readable.
> Purely consistency with the surrounding code. I was on the fence about
> that one...
The adjacent code is doing something different than a bit-test, though:
it's checking whether multibit fields have particular values.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-08-12 23:09:50 | Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-08-12 22:54:02 | Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean |