From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: A minor correction in comment in heaptuple.c |
Date: | 2013-06-18 17:19:40 |
Message-ID: | 20130618171940.GH5646@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-06-18 13:14:30 -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:38:45 +0200
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > > How about "check if attnum is out of range according to the tupdesc"
> > > instead?
> >
> > I can't follow. Minus the word 'NULL' - which carries meaning - your
> > suggested comment pretty much is the same as the existing comment
> > except that you use 'check' instead of 'return'.
>
> The difference is that I say what the purpose of the function is but
> don't say what it actually returns. The code itself does that.
>
> > Original:
> > /*
> > * return NULL if attnum is out of range according to the
> > tupdesc */
>
> Obviously wrong so it should be changed.
The NULL refers to the *meaning* of the function (remember, it's called
slot_attisnull) . Which is to test whether an attribute is null. Not to
a C NULL.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-06-18 17:31:40 | Re: ASYNC Privileges proposal |
Previous Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 2013-06-18 17:14:30 | Re: A minor correction in comment in heaptuple.c |