Hi,
On 2019-05-24 08:32:29 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 03:31:30PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Well, I think the approach of duplicating code all over is a bad idea,
> > and the fix is many times too big. But it's better than not fixing.
>
> Well, I can see why the current solution is not perfect, but we have
> been doing that for some time now, and redesigning that part has a
> much larger impact than a single column. I have committed the initial
> fix now.
That argument would hold some sway if we there weren't a number of cases
doing it differently in the tree already:
if (i_checkoption == -1 || PQgetisnull(res, i, i_checkoption))
tblinfo[i].checkoption = NULL;
else
tblinfo[i].checkoption = pg_strdup(PQgetvalue(res, i,
i_checkoption));
if (PQfnumber(res, "protrftypes") != -1)
protrftypes = PQgetvalue(res, 0, PQfnumber(res, "protrftypes"));
else
protrftypes = NULL;
if (PQfnumber(res, "proparallel") != -1)
proparallel = PQgetvalue(res, 0, PQfnumber(res, "proparallel"));
else
proparallel = NULL;
if (i_proparallel != -1)
proparallel = PQgetvalue(res, 0, PQfnumber(res, "proparallel"));
else
proparallel = NULL;
And no, I don't buy the consistency argument. Continuing to do redundant
work just because we always have, isn't better than having one useful
and one redundant approach. And yes, a full blown redesign would be
better, but that doesn't get harder by having the -1 checks.
- Andres
