| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Nitpicking: unnecessary NULL-pointer check in pg_upgrade's controldata.c |
| Date: | 2015-06-26 18:47:57 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobhJqHJR=0uLFOZ5Zn7VwpDGsF0d8LXQ+QQopMOZ+3efQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Well, if you find this to be good code cleanup on its own merits,
> you have a commit bit, you can go commit it. I'm just saying that
> Coverity is not a good judge of code readability and even less of
> a judge of likely future changes. So we should not let it determine
> whether we approve of "unnecessary" tests.
Yes, it might not be right in every case, but this one seems like a
good change to me, so committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-06-26 18:49:50 | Re: Nitpicking: unnecessary NULL-pointer check in pg_upgrade's controldata.c |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2015-06-26 18:46:47 | Re: Re: Let PostgreSQL's On Schedule checkpoint write buffer smooth spread cycle by tuning IsCheckpointOnSchedule? |