On 2013-06-18 05:21:15 -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:01:28 +0200
> Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> 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?
I can't follow. Minus the word 'NULL' - which carries meaning - your
suggested comment pretty much is the same as the existing comment except
that you use 'check' instead of 'return'.
Original:
/*
* return NULL if attnum is out of range according to the tupdesc
*/
if (attnum > tupleDesc->natts)
return true;
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
