| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A doubt about a newly added errdetail |
| Date: | 2022-09-27 12:42:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20220927124249.4zdzzlz6had7k3x2@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
While reading this code, I noticed that function expr_allowed_in_node()
has a very strange API: it doesn't have any return convention at all
other than "if we didn't modify errdetail_str then all is good". I was
tempted to add an "Assert(*errdetail_msg == NULL)" at the start of it,
just to make sure that it is not called if a message is already set.
I think it would be much saner to inline the few lines of that function
in its sole caller, as in the attached.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"E pur si muove" (Galileo Galilei)
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| expr_allowed_in_node.patch | text/x-diff | 2.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-09-27 13:16:44 | Re: [RFC] building postgres with meson - v13 |
| Previous Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2022-09-27 12:34:48 | Re: Adding a clang-format file |