David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> writes: > I think the change makes sense. I don't see any good reason to define > COMMAND_TAG_NEXTTAG or force the compiler's hand when it comes to > sizing that array. > Clearly, Coverity does not understand that we'll never call any of > those GetCommandTag* functions with COMMAND_TAG_NEXTTAG.
+1, but would this also allow us to get rid of any default:
cases in switches on command tags?
regards, tom lane
