> On Nov 18, 2022, at 4:04 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:56 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is a completely bad idea. If it takes that level of analysis
>> to see that msg can't be null, we should leave the test in place.
>> Any future modification of either this code or
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:56 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> This is a completely bad idea. If it takes that level of analysis
> to see that msg can't be null, we should leave the test in place.
> Any future modification of either this code or what it calls could
> break the conclusion.
+1. Also, even if
Japin Li writes:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 23:06, Japin Li wrote:
>> I think we cannot remove the check, for example, if objtype is
>> OBJECT_OPFAMILY,
>> and schema_does_not_exist_skipping() returns true, the so the msg keeps NULL,
>> if we remove this check, a sigfault might be occurd in
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 23:06, Japin Li wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 20:12, Ted Yu wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I was looking at commit aca992040951c7665f1701cd25d48808eda7a809
>>
>> I think the check of msg after the switch statement is not necessary. The
>> variable msg is used afterward.
>> If there
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 20:12, Ted Yu wrote:
> Hi,
> I was looking at commit aca992040951c7665f1701cd25d48808eda7a809
>
> I think the check of msg after the switch statement is not necessary. The
> variable msg is used afterward.
> If there is (potential) missing case in switch statement, the
Hi,
I was looking at commit aca992040951c7665f1701cd25d48808eda7a809
I think the check of msg after the switch statement is not necessary. The
variable msg is used afterward.
If there is (potential) missing case in switch statement, the compiler
would warn.
How about removing the check ?
Thanks
