Re: [PATCH] Proof of concept for GUC improvements

From: David Christensen <david(dot)christensen(at)crunchydata(dot)com>
To: Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Proof of concept for GUC improvements
Date: 2021-08-19 22:43:55
Message-ID: CAOxo6XKLMT6nG0De+zwz+izmU2TCwFFY5B99khk4052RWyTULQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Hi,
> For parse_special_int():
>
> + * true. If it's not found, return false and retval is set to 0.
> ...
> + /* don't touch the return value in other case */
> + return false;
>
> It seems the two comments are not consistent with each other (retval is not set in case no entry is found).
>
> For special_int_to_value():
>
> + * true. If it's not found, return false and retval is set to 0.
>
> First, there is no assignment to retval at the end of the method. Second, retval points to string, so it shouldn't be set to 0.
>
> Cheers

Thanks, I actually noticed on a re-read that the comments didn't
match, but they'll be fixed in the next version. (Will wait to collect
additional feedback.)

Functionality-wise, any thoughts on the overall approach or the specific patch?

Thanks,

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zhihong Yu 2021-08-19 22:47:33 Re: [PATCH] Proof of concept for GUC improvements
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-08-19 22:31:09 Silliness in regexp's citerdissect/creviterdissect