Re: A minor correction in comment in heaptuple.c

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: A minor correction in comment in heaptuple.c
Date: 2013-06-18 09:38:45
Message-ID: 20130618093845.GD5646@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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 <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Boszormenyi Zoltan 2013-06-18 09:55:54 Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters (RE: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review])
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-06-18 09:35:10 Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY