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
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 |