James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 1:04 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Perhaps the semantics are such that that's actually sensible, but it's
>> far from a straightforward remapping of the old enum.
> Right, I didn't see the explicit "= 0" in other enums there, so it
> made me wonder if it was intentional to designate that one had to be
> 0, but I guess without a comment that's a lot of inference.
It's possible that somebody meant that as an indicator that the code
depends on palloc0() leaving the field with that value. But if so,
you'd soon find that out ... and an actual comment would be better,
anyway.
regards, tom lane