On 11 Feb 2026 at 17:11 +0100, Dean Rasheed <[email protected]>, wrote: > On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 at 14:55, Viktor Holmberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Looking more at this, I’m quite sure that the p_is_insert field can just be > > removed? > > See 0002. > > Ah, good idea. Well spotted! > > This dates back to c1ca3a1, which removed a similar p_is_update field, > but noted that using p_is_insert wasn't particularly pretty. > > Going back even further, it looks like p_is_insert and p_is_update > used to be much more widely used, but now we're down to just this one > place in transformAssignedExpr() that reads p_is_insert, and as you > say, it can deduce the same information from the exprKind passed to > it, which is much neater. > > Barring objections, I'll push both those shortly. Certainly no objections from me! Excited to get this in.
/Viktor
