Em sex., 14 de fev. de 2020 às 03:13, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> escreveu:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 02:22:36PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote: > > I just kept it, even if I duplicated the error message, the style was > kept > > and in my opinion it is much more coherent and readable. > > But your solution is also good, and yes, it is worth it, because even > with > > small benefits, the change improves the code and prevents Coverity or > > another tool from continuing to report false positives or not. > > Complaints from static analyzers need to be taken with a pinch of > salt, and I agree with Tom here. > That's right, I will try avoid sending patches that only satisfy static analysis tools. > > Virtually no code will break for the change, since bool and int are > > internally the same types. > > I believe that no code will have either adjusted to work with corrected > > functions, even if they use compiled libraries. > > And again, it is worth correcting at least the static ones, because the > > goal here, too, is to improve readability. > > FWIW, looking at the patch from upthread, I think that it is not that > wise to blindly break the error compatibility handling of all PQsend* > routines by switching the error handling of the connection to be after > the compatibility checks, and all the other changes don't justify a > breakage making back-patching more complicated nor do they improve > readability at great lengths. > It is difficult to understand what you consider to be improvement. Another programming principle I follow is to remove anything static from loops that can be executed outside the loop. In this specific case, from the loop modified in fe-exec, two branches were removed, is this an improvement for you or not? See patch attached. regards, Ranier Vilela
fe-exec.patch
Description: Binary data