> The only thing I??m cautious about is treating ??pset.db is NULL/invalid?? as > just another ??quoting failure?? case. In this completion branch we call > PQescapeLiteral(pset.db, ...) before we ever reach exec_query(), so an > explicit guard is about avoiding passing an unusable handle into libpq in the > first place. Even if libpq were to return NULL in that situation, it??s > not > something I??d want to rely on implicitly. > That??s why I suggested the explicit guard: it matches the general psql style > of checking !pset.db before calling libpq APIs (e.g. psql_get_variable() in > src/bin/psql/common.c checks !pset.db before calling PQescapeLiteral()), and > it makes the intent obviously safe. Behavior-wise it??s the same (fall back > to ALL), just more defensive/clear & explicit. Hi,
Okay, I understand what you mean, thank you. -- Regards, Man Zeng www.openhalo.org
