From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
---|---|
To: | Karina Litskevich <litskevichkarina(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Avoid unused value (src/fe_utils/print.c) |
Date: | 2023-07-11 22:33:51 |
Message-ID: | CAL9smLBmjWjNd0TOJFyAUjoq54mexZiL7C=Ky9Utr8f9euKizQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 5:37 PM Karina Litskevich
<litskevichkarina(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> My point is, technically right now you won't see any difference in output
> if you remove the line. Because if we get to that line the need_recordsep
> is already true. However, understanding why it is true is complicated. That's
> why if you remove the line people who read the code will wonder why we don't
> need a separator after "fputs"ing a footer. So keeping that line will make
> the code more readable.
> Moreover, removing the line will possibly complicate the future maintenance.
> As I wrote in the part you just quoted, if the function changes in the way
> that need_recordsep is not true right before printing footers any more, then
> output will be unexpected.
I agree with Karina here. Either this patch should keep the
"need_recordsep = true;" line, thus removing the no-op assignment to
false and making the code slightly less unreadable; or the entire
function should be refactored for readability.
.m
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2023-07-11 22:43:14 | Re: Reducing connection overhead in pg_upgrade compat check phase |
Previous Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2023-07-11 21:11:02 | Re: Parallel CREATE INDEX for BRIN indexes |