Re: Yet another small patch - reorderbuffer.c:1099

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2016-04-05 11:38:27 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> The current arrangement looks bizantine to me, for no reason.  If we
>> think that one of the two branches might do something additional to the
>> list deletion, surely that will be in a separate stanza with its own
>> comment; and if we ever want to remove the list deletion from one of the
>> two cases (something that strikes me as unlikely) then we will need to
>> fix the comment, too.

> You realize it's two different lists they're deleted in the different
> branches?

I looked at this and can see some of the argument on both sides, but
if it's setting off static-analyzer warnings for some people, that
seems like a sufficient reason to change it.  We certainly make more
significant changes than this in order to silence warnings.

I rewrote the comment a bit more and pushed it.
        regards, tom lane