2011/1/19 Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net>: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> I think we should reject this one. > > Works for me. > >> Using a switch there is a bit problematic since in some cases you want >> to use "break" to exit the loop. We could replace such breaks by gotos, >> but that would be another strike against the argument that you're making >> things more readable. I think the switch in exec_stmt_loop is only >> workable because it has no cleanup to do, so it can just "return" in >> places where a loop break would otherwise be needed. In short: if you >> want to make these all look alike, better to go the other way. > > Ah, yeah, good point. We do use gotos elsewhere for this reason, might > consider revisiting those also, if we're trying to a 'clean-up' patch. > In any case, I'll mark this as rejected.
ok, I don't thinking so current code is readable, but I can't to do better now. Thank you for review. Regards Pavel Stehule > > Thanks! > > Stephen > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAk03S10ACgkQrzgMPqB3kigWdQCeIU/dvgJ8bMVZ7nh+TYiFHVlP > 4H4AnR/JbboMWbCu95G2aUEcP3LZDDGM > =R8c6 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
