"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes: > My first reaction that this change was about a net wash in > readability for me -- in a couple places it might save me a few > moments thinking about what the number was meant to represent, > balanced against following the ctag back to the #define to see what > number was used for things like DAYS_PER_YEAR or DAYS_PER_MONTH. > Comments like the one Bruce cites above seem like they tip the > scales in favor of the patch for me. Having a place to document > the choice of questionable values seems like it's better than just > using the questionable values "bare" all over the place. Neither > omission of the justification nor repeating it seems better.
Another advantage of the macros is that it makes it a lot easier to grep to see where a questionable value is being used. Originally I'd felt that wrapping those bogus numbers in macros was a bad idea, but the documentation and searching advantages are enough to make me think it's all right. 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