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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
