From: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | RE: Enhanced error message to include hint messages for redundant options error |
Date: | 2021-05-10 00:30:09 |
Message-ID: | OS0PR01MB57160E81E5A91B0517A4866D94549@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > > > > > Thanks! The v5 patch looks good to me. Let's see if all
> > > > > > > agree on the goto duplicate_error approach which could reduce
> the LOC by ~80.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think the "goto duplicate_error" approach looks good, it
> > > > > > avoids duplicating the same error code multiple times.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks. I will mark the v5 patch "ready for committer" if no one has
> comments.
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I looked into the patch and noticed a minor thing.
> > > >
> > > > + return; /* keep compiler quiet */
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > I think we do not need the comment here.
> > > > The compiler seems not require "return" at the end of function
> > > > when function's return type is VOID.
> > > >
> > > > In addition, it seems better to remove these "return;" like what
> > > > commit "3974c4" did.
> > >
> > > It looks like that commit removed the plain return statements for a
> > > void returning functions. I see in the code that there are return
> > > statements that are there right after ereport(ERROR, just to keep
> > > the compiler quiet. Here in this patch also, we have return;
> > > statements after ereport(ERROR, for void returning functions. I'm
> > > not sure removing them would cause some compiler warnings on some
> > > platforms with some other compilers. If we're not sure, I'm okay to
> > > keep those return; statements. Thoughts?
> >
> > I felt we could retain the return statement and remove the comments.
> > If you are ok with that I will modify and post a patch for it.
> > Thoughts?
>
> I would like to keep it as is i.e. both return statement and /* keep compiler
> quiet */ comment. Having said that, it's better to leave it to the committer on
> whether to have the return statement at all.
Yes, it's better to leave it to the committer on whether to have the "return;".
But, I think at least removing "return;" which is at the *end* of the function will not cause any warning.
Such as:
+ return; /* keep compiler quiet */
}
So, I'd vote for at least removing the comment " keep the compiler quiet ".
Best regards,
houzj
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-05-10 00:36:24 | Re: Small issues with CREATE TABLE COMPRESSION |
Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-05-10 00:20:44 | Re: Inherited UPDATE/DELETE vs async execution |