On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 4:59 AM Andreas Karlsson <[email protected]> wrote: > The code is correct but a bit confusing.
Yeah, it's not great. The need for this (security-critical!) code to wrangle three separate allocation conventions is error-prone, to say the least. > If someone has a patch improving readability Suggestions? > adding this noop NULL check to silence a false positive from a > static analyzer does not seem like an improvement. We do occasionally merge code to silence false positives, and we could maybe do something with pg_assume() here, but I agree that it'd be better to refactor it so that it's obviously correct. --Jacob
