On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:29:36PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-01-25 16:28:09 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:04:25AM -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > > D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net>
> > >
> > > > Although, the more I think about it, the more I think that the comment
> > > > is both confusing and superfluous. The code itself is much clearer.
> > >
> > > Seriously, if there is any comment there at all, it should be a
> > > succinct explanation for why we didn't do this (which passes `make
> > > check-world`):
> >
> > Is everyone OK with me applying this patch from Kevin, attached?
>
> No. I still think this is stupid. Not at all clearer and possibly breaks
> stuff.
OK, how about if we change the comment to this:
/*
--> * assume NULL if attnum is out of range according to the tupdesc */ if (attnum > tupleDesc->natts)
returntrue;
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +