From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove dead assignment |
Date: | 2012-03-26 19:53:52 |
Message-ID: | 16440.1332791632@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On mn, 2012-03-26 at 15:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I also do not think it does anything for readability for this call
>> of read_info() to be unexpectedly unlike all the others.
> I do not think that it is good code quality to assign something to a
> variable and then assign something different to a variable later in the
> same function.
Well, that's a totally different issue, because if we had used a
different variable for the other purpose, this assignment would
still be dead and coverity would still be whinging about it, no?
The problem that I have with this change (and the similar ones you've
made elsewhere) is really that it's only chance that the code isn't
fetching anything from the result of read_info. If we subsequently
wanted to change the logic so it did do that, we'd have to put back the
assignment. That sort of code churn benefits nobody.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-03-27 17:40:30 | pgsql: pg_dump: Small message adjustment for consistency |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-03-26 19:29:19 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove dead assignment |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-26 20:05:42 | Re: Command Triggers, v16 |
Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2012-03-26 19:36:40 | Re: Command Triggers, v16 |