> > Hi, > > > > Thank you for your review. I understand your feedback ?C this was a result > > of my personal coding habit: I prefer to > explicitly call > > `free_parsestate()`, and also want to respect the comment associated with > > `make_parsestate()` (shown below): > > ``` > > As Robert Haas explained in a nearby thread, we usually don't accept > patches that modify code for personal preferences. We instead follow > precedence. Also the email proposing the patches should explain why > those changes are being proposed, especially when they are more than > trivial changes. >
I understand, thank you very much for your guidance. > > /* > > * make_parsestate > > * Allocate and initialize a new ParseState. > > * > > * Caller should eventually release the ParseState via free_parsestate(). > > */ > > ``` > > For this reason, I have made minor modifications to this section of the > > code. > > > > Given that we have many other callers who do not call > free_parsestate(), probably this should change, as a separate patch > though. Maybe there is a pattern of when to call free_parsestate() and > when not to. It will be good to add a clarifying comment here. Yes, I completely agree with your suggestion. -- regards, Man Zeng
