On 2014-01-25 17:15:01 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 04:56:37PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:40:28PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > >> I think this style of pinhole copy editing is pretty pointless. There's > > >> dozen checks just like this around. If somebody wants to change the rules > > >> or improve comment it takes more than picking a random one. > > > > > OK, change made. > > > > FWIW, I don't find that an improvement either. As Andres says, this > > is just applying the same rule that's used in many other places, ie > > return null if the requested attnum is off the end of the tuple. > > OK, I can revert it, but I don't see any other cases of the string > 'return NULL if' in the executor code. What the code really is doing is > "Assume NULL so return true if". The code was never returning NULL, it > was assuming the attribute was NULL and returning true. Am I missing > something?
The friggin function in which you whacked around the comment is called "slot_attisnull()". Referring to the functions meaning in a comment above an early return isn't a novel thing. Just search for attnum > tupleDesc->natts to find lots of similar chunks of code, several of them even in the same file. 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
