| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, rurban(at)x-ray(dot)at, Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: APR 1.0 released |
| Date: | 2004-09-09 03:58:26 |
| Message-ID: | 472.1094702306@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> I don't understand most of this patch. What difference does changing the
> preprocessor test order make?
I think Bruce was mostly trying to make all the similar tests look
alike. Also I agree that "if a && !b" is clearer than "if !b && a";
the latter requires a bit more thought to parse the extent of the !
operator...
However, per Michael's report there's some oversight in this patch.
I'm not presently ready to update to CVS tip; who can find the problem?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-09-09 04:07:53 | Re: Making AFTER triggers act properly in PL functions |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2004-09-09 03:57:30 | Re: Making AFTER triggers act properly in PL functions |