FabrÃzio de Royes Mello wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > I personally find the direct access actually more readable, so I'm not a
> > fan of further extending the scheme. Consistency with some other common
> > accessors is an argument though.
>
> What you mean
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Andres Freund
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2014-11-07 22:08:33 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > After looking at a patch of this commit fest using
> > rd_rel->relpersistence, I got a look at how many times this expression
> > was being used directly in the backend code a
Hi,
On 2014-11-07 22:08:33 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> After looking at a patch of this commit fest using
> rd_rel->relpersistence, I got a look at how many times this expression
> was being used directly in the backend code and wondered if it would
> not be useful to add a dedicated macro in
Hi all,
After looking at a patch of this commit fest using
rd_rel->relpersistence, I got a look at how many times this expression
was being used directly in the backend code and wondered if it would
not be useful to add a dedicated macro in rel.h to get the persistence
of a relation like in the pa
