From: | David Christensen <david(dot)christensen(at)crunchydata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Proof of concept for GUC improvements |
Date: | 2021-08-19 22:43:55 |
Message-ID: | CAOxo6XKLMT6nG0De+zwz+izmU2TCwFFY5B99khk4052RWyTULQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Hi,
> For parse_special_int():
>
> + * true. If it's not found, return false and retval is set to 0.
> ...
> + /* don't touch the return value in other case */
> + return false;
>
> It seems the two comments are not consistent with each other (retval is not set in case no entry is found).
>
> For special_int_to_value():
>
> + * true. If it's not found, return false and retval is set to 0.
>
> First, there is no assignment to retval at the end of the method. Second, retval points to string, so it shouldn't be set to 0.
>
> Cheers
Thanks, I actually noticed on a re-read that the comments didn't
match, but they'll be fixed in the next version. (Will wait to collect
additional feedback.)
Functionality-wise, any thoughts on the overall approach or the specific patch?
Thanks,
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zhihong Yu | 2021-08-19 22:47:33 | Re: [PATCH] Proof of concept for GUC improvements |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-08-19 22:31:09 | Silliness in regexp's citerdissect/creviterdissect |