"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mendola Gaetano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A test for null string is missing here:
> 
> > MemoryContextStrdup(MemoryContext context, const char *string)
> > {
> > char *nstr;
> > -
> > - if ( !string )
> > - {
> > - elog(ERROR, "MemoryContextStrdup called with a NULL pointer");
> > - return NULL;
> > - }
> 
> This seems inappropriate to me.  Are you going to suggest that every
> routine that takes a pointer parameter needs to explicitly test for
> null?  We could bloat the code a great deal that way, and slow it down,
> without gaining anything at all in debuggability (IMHO anyway).

Of course I'm not suggesting this, what I'm suggesting is put an
assert( ) if the test can slow down the performances and an "if ( ) "
in places that are not going to touch the performances.

I think that is reasonable.


Regards
Gaetano Mendola

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to