| From: | Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: tupdesc: simplify assert in equalTupleDescs() |
| Date: | 2026-03-17 08:12:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAN55FZ2rRmjAdV-yv6xO6HYpwT1HwXp0vUt1Bse-kmwew_qi-Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 at 10:22, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> While reading the code, I saw these assertions in equalTupleDescs():
> ```
> CompactAttribute *cattr1 = TupleDescCompactAttr(tupdesc1, i);
> CompactAttribute *cattr2 = TupleDescCompactAttr(tupdesc2, i);
>
> Assert(cattr1->attnullability != ATTNULLABLE_UNKNOWN);
> Assert((cattr1->attnullability == ATTNULLABLE_UNKNOWN) ==
> (cattr2->attnullability == ATTNULLABLE_UNKNOWN));
>
> ```
>
> The first assertion already guarantees that cattr1->attnullability is not ATTNULLABLE_UNKNOWN, so in the second one the expression cattr1->attnullability == ATTNULLABLE_UNKNOWN will always be false, That means the second assertion is effectively just checking that cattr2->attnullability is also not ATTNULLABLE_UNKNOWN.
>
> So the current code is correct, but it feels a bit harder to read than necessary. This patch just simplifies the second assertion in a direct way.
Thank you for the report! You are right and the patch looks good to me.
Nitpick: It is still a bit hard to understand why
'cattr2->attnullability' should not be equal to 'ATTNULLABLE_UNKNOWN'.
It would be good to add a comment explaining that 'attr2->attnotnull'
should be true too because 'if (attr1->attnotnull !=
attr2->attnotnull)' is returning false.
--
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marco Nenciarini | 2026-03-17 08:12:50 | Re: BUG: Cascading standby fails to reconnect after falling back to archive recovery |
| Previous Message | jian he | 2026-03-17 08:05:58 | Re: [PATCH] no table rewrite when set column type to constrained domain |