On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:01:28 +0200 Andres Freund <[email protected]> wrote: > > /* > > * return true if attnum is out of range according to the tupdesc > > */ > > if (attnum > tupleDesc->natts) > > return true; > > I think the comment is more meaningfull before the change since it > tells us how nonexisting columns are interpreted.
I think that the comment is bad either way. Comments should explain the code, not repeat it. The above is not far removed from... return 5; /* return the number 5 */ How about "check if attnum is out of range according to the tupdesc" instead? -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <[email protected]> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 788 2246 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner. IM: [email protected], VOIP: sip:[email protected] -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
