On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 8:08 AM Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> Makes sense now (in your first message, you said that the problem was > with "sign", and the patch didn't address the actual problem in > IS_PLUS()). > > One can look and find that the unreachable code was introduced at > 7a3e7b64a. > > With your proposed change, the unreachable line is hit by regression > tests, which is an improvment. As is the change to pg_dump.c. But that now reachable line just unsets a flag that we previously found unset, right? And if that line was unreachable, then surely the previous flag-clearing operation is too? 5669 994426 : if (IS_MINUS(Np->Num)) // <- also always false 5670 0 : Np->Num->flag &= ~NUM_F_MINUS; 5671 : } 5672 524 : else if (Np->sign != '+' && IS_PLUS(Np->Num)) 5673 0 : Np->Num->flag &= ~NUM_F_PLUS; https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/utils/adt/formatting.c.gcov.html I'm inclined to turn the dead unsets into asserts. -- John Naylor EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
