David Rowley <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 09:26, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 0001 below does this. I found a couple of places that could use
>> forfive(), as well. I think this is a clear legibility and
>> error-proofing win, and we should just push it.
> I've looked over this and I agree that it's a good idea. Reducing the
> number of lnext() usages seems like a good idea in order to reduce the
> footprint of the main patch.
I've pushed that; thanks for reviewing!
>> 0002 below does this. I'm having a hard time deciding whether this
>> part is a good idea or just code churn. It might be more readable
>> (especially to newbies) but I can't evaluate that very objectively.
> I'm less decided on this.
Yeah, I think I'm just going to drop that idea. People didn't seem
very sold on list_cell_is_last() being a readability improvement,
and it certainly does nothing to reduce the footprint of the main
patch.
I now need to rebase the main patch over what I pushed; off to do
that next.
regards, tom lane
