From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] libpq improvements and fixes |
Date: | 2020-02-14 06:13:52 |
Message-ID: | 20200214061352.GE1998@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 02:22:36PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> I just kept it, even if I duplicated the error message, the style was kept
> and in my opinion it is much more coherent and readable.
> But your solution is also good, and yes, it is worth it, because even with
> small benefits, the change improves the code and prevents Coverity or
> another tool from continuing to report false positives or not.
Complaints from static analyzers need to be taken with a pinch of
salt, and I agree with Tom here.
> Virtually no code will break for the change, since bool and int are
> internally the same types.
> I believe that no code will have either adjusted to work with corrected
> functions, even if they use compiled libraries.
> And again, it is worth correcting at least the static ones, because the
> goal here, too, is to improve readability.
FWIW, looking at the patch from upthread, I think that it is not that
wise to blindly break the error compatibility handling of all PQsend*
routines by switching the error handling of the connection to be after
the compatibility checks, and all the other changes don't justify a
breakage making back-patching more complicated nor do they improve
readability at great lengths.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | keisuke kuroda | 2020-02-14 06:42:16 | Re: In PG12, query with float calculations is slower than PG11 |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-02-14 06:12:18 | Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager |