| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Matt" <matt(at)lindenelevator(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #3415: plperl spi_exec_prepared variable undef value confusion |
| Date: | 2007-06-28 16:46:24 |
| Message-ID: | 14451.1183049184@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
I wrote:
> [ pokes at it ... ] Some of the places in plperl.c that are checking for
> undef values use code like
> if (SvOK(val) && SvTYPE(val) != SVt_NULL)
> and some just test the SvTYPE part. It looks to me like the SvOK test
> is essential --- in fact I'm not sure the SvTYPE test is even bringing
> anything to the party. Any perl-extension gurus around here?
Google turned up this comp.lang.perl.misc thread:
http://www.dbforums.com/showthread.php?s=6aaf30de92e7732ff45d667075f997bf&t=1071763
which seems to establish pretty conclusively that SvOK() is *the* way
to check for defined-ness, and the SVt_NULL test is wrong as well as
useless. So barring objections, I'll go make the code do it that way.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-06-28 16:55:09 | Re: BUG #3415: plperl spi_exec_prepared variable undef value confusion |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-28 16:34:03 | Re: BUG #3415: plperl spi_exec_prepared variable undef value confusion |