| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.3
|
|
This code isn't used, and there's no clear reason why anybody would ever
want to use it. These traversal mechanisms don't yield a visitation order
that is semantically meaningful for any external purpose, nor are they
any faster or simpler than the left-to-right or right-to-left traversals.
(In fact, some rough testing suggests they are slower :-(.) Moreover,
these mechanisms are impossible to test in any arm's-length fashion; doing
so requires knowledge of the red-black tree's internal implementation.
Hence, let's just jettison them.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
|
|
The new indent version includes numerous fixes thanks to Piotr Stefaniak.
The main changes visible in this commit are:
* Nicer formatting of function-pointer declarations.
* No longer unexpectedly removes spaces in expressions using casts,
sizeof, or offsetof.
* No longer wants to add a space in "struct structname *varname", as
well as some similar cases for const- or volatile-qualified pointers.
* Declarations using PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY are formatted more nicely.
* Fixes bug where comments following declarations were sometimes placed
with no space separating them from the code.
* Fixes some odd decisions for comments following case labels.
* Fixes some cases where comments following code were indented to less
than the expected column 33.
On the less good side, it now tends to put more whitespace around typedef
names that are not listed in typedefs.list. This might encourage us to
put more effort into typedef name collection; it's not really a bug in
indent itself.
There are more changes coming after this round, having to do with comment
indentation and alignment of lines appearing within parentheses. I wanted
to limit the size of the diffs to something that could be reviewed without
one's eyes completely glazing over, so it seemed better to split up the
changes as much as practical.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
|
|
perltidy run not included.
|
|
|
|
Coverity complained about the for(;;) loop, because it never actually
iterated. It was used just to be able to use "break" to exit it early. I
agree with Coverity, that's a bit confusing, so refactor the code to
use if-else instead.
While we're at it, use a local variable to hold the "current" node. That's
shorter and clearer than referring to "iter->last_visited" all the time.
|
|
While we don't need multiple iterators at the moment, the interface is
nicer and less dangerous this way.
Aleksander Alekseev, with some changes by me.
|
|
Backpatch certain files through 9.1
|
|
Backpatch certain files through 9.0
|
|
We have other general-purpose data structures in src/backend/lib, so it
seems like a better home for the red-black tree as well.
|
