On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 02:58:02PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Dec-13, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Attached is an updated version for that as 0001. Thanks for the
>> review. Does that part look good to you now?
>
> +1.
Thanks for the review, I have applied this part.
> Hmm ... "routine"?
That's even better.
> I'm not sure if NULLs are better than empty arrays, but I agree that we
> should pick one representation for undefined object and use it
> consistently for all object types.
Okay, thanks.
>> There is some more refactoring work still needed for constraints, large
>> objects and functions, in a way similar to a26116c6. I am pretty happy
>> with the shape of 0001, so this could be applied, 0002 still needs to be
>> reworked so as all undefined object types behave as described above in a
>> consistent manner. Do those definitions make sense?
>
> I think so, yes.
>
> Thanks for taking care of this.
Thanks again for looking up at what was proposed. I'll see if I can
finish the refactoring part for the next CF, and be done with this
stuff.
--
Michael