| From: | Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrey Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add pretty-printed XML output option |
| Date: | 2025-05-22 08:42:46 |
| Message-ID: | 29ec1b21-1113-403c-bd00-b5009d9c4fdb@uni-muenster.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 22.05.25 01:48, Tom Lane wrote:
> I did look at that one too. I think it's fine, because we're
> dealing with a newly-created document which can't have a root node
> yet. (Reinforcing this, Valgrind sees no leaks after applying
> my patch.) I considered adding an assertion that that call returns
> NULL, but concluded that it wasn't worth the notational hassle.
> I'm not strongly set on that conclusion, though, if you think
> differently.
I see. In that case I believe that at least a different comment
explaining this decision would avoid confusion. Something like
/*
* This attaches root to doc, so we do not need to free it separately.
* The return value of xmlDocSetRootElement (xmlNodePtr) is intentionally
* ignored here, as it is guaranteed to be NULL in this specific context.
* When using this function elsewhere, ensure to handle the return value
* properly.
*/
Best regards, Jim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla | 2025-05-22 08:46:13 | Re: [Util] Warn and Remove Invalid GUCs |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2025-05-22 08:26:33 | Re: Retiring some encodings? |