| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: fastgetattr & isNull |
| Date: | 2010-01-06 18:05:06 |
| Message-ID: | 19485.1262801106@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The fastgetattr() attempts to make provision for the case where isnull
> is a NULL pointer, but it doesn't seem to work. I tried it and got:
> relcache.c:494: error: invalid use of void expression
> relcache.c:494: error: invalid use of void expression
> relcache.c:494: warning: left-hand operand of comma expression has no effect
> relcache.c:494: warning: left-hand operand of comma expression has no effect
Hmm. I think the macro means to handle the case where the argument is a
pointer variable whose value is null, not the case of writing "NULL" as
a literal argument.
Still, it's not entirely clear to me why ignoring the possibility of
a null value would be a good idea. So far as I can see, we have at
least the following coding pattern everywhere this is used:
fastgetattr(..., &isnull);
Assert(!isnull);
and I don't think it's good coding style to go without even an Assert.
So +1 for removing the support for a null pointer ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-01-06 18:08:05 | Re: [HACKERS] tribble.postgresql.org - planned maintenance downtime |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2010-01-06 18:03:33 | Re: [HACKERS] tribble.postgresql.org - planned maintenance downtime |