On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 10:35 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> On 2023-Aug-29, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 5:35 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 8:15 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO there are inconsistencies in the second patch that was pushed.
>
> > I find your suggestions reasonable. Alvaro, do you have any comments?
>
> Well, my main comment is that at this point I'm not sure these
> isFooWorker() macros are worth their salt. It looks like we could
> replace their uses with direct type comparisons in their callsites and
> remove them, with no loss of readability. The am_sth_worker() are
> probably a bit more useful, though some of the callsites could end up
> better if replaced with straight type comparison.
>
> All in all, I don't disagree with Peter's suggestions, but this is
> pretty much in "meh" territory for me.
I had written a small non-functional patch [1] to address some macro
inconsistencies introduced by a prior patch of this thread.
It received initial feedback from Amit ("I find your suggestions
reasonable") and from Alvaro ("I don't disagree with Peter's
suggestions") but then nothing further happened. I also created a CF
entry https://commitfest.postgresql.org/46/4570/ for it.
AFAIK my patch is still valid, but after 4 months of no activity it
seems there is no interest in pushing it, so I am withdrawing the CF
entry.
======
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPuwaF4Sb41pWQk69d2WO_ZJQpj-_2JkQvP%3D1jwozUpcCQ%40mail.gmail.com
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia