On Tuesday, March 31, 2026 5:36 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 2:19 PM Peter Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > There are many return points, and most of those "if" blocks cannot > > fall through (they return). > > > > I found it slightly difficult to read the code because I kept having > > to think, "OK, if we reached here, it means pubviaroot must be false," > > or "OK, if we reached this far, then puballtables must be false, and > > pubviaroot must be false," etc. > > > > I can't say exactly why, but I find it difficult to read this function. So, I > share > your concerns about the code of this function. > Because of its complexity it is difficult to ascertain that the functionality > is > correct or we missed something. Also, considering it is correct today, in its > current form, it may become difficult to enhance it in future. >
I attempted to refactor the code a bit based on my preferred style, as shown in the attachment. While the number of return points couldn't be reduced, I tried to eliminate if-else branches where possible. Sharing this top-up patch as a reference for an alternative style that reduces code size. Best Regards, Hou zj
v1-0001-refactor-the-function.patch
Description: v1-0001-refactor-the-function.patch
