2010/12/17 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes: >> 2010/12/17 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: >>> I'm not really impressed with this idea: there's no a priori reason >>> that all those loop types would necessarily have exactly the same >>> control logic. > >> There is no reason why the processing should be same, but actually is same. > > Yes, and it might need to be different in future, whereupon this patch > would make life extremely difficult.
Do you know about some possible change? I can't to argument with this argument. But I can use a same argument. Isn't be more practical to have a centralized management for return code? There is same probability to be some features in future that will need a modify this fragment - for example a new return code value. Without centralized management, you will have to modify four fragments instead one. Regards Pavel Stehule > > regards, tom lane > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
