On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 2:48 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> At Mon, 22 Nov 2021 15:38:23 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote in
> > * queryId is supposed to be a valid value, otherwise this function dosen't
> > * calucate it by its own as before then returns immediately.
>
> Mmm. That's bad. This is the correted version.
>
> * queryId is supposed to be a valid value, otherwise this function doesn't
> * calculate it by its own as before then returns immediately.
Ah good catch! Indeed the semantics changed and I missed that comment.
I think that the new comment should be a bit more precise about what
is a valid value and should probably not refer to a previous version
of the code. How about something like:
- * If queryId is 0 then this is a utility statement for which we couldn't
- * compute a queryId during parse analysis, and we should compute a suitable
- * queryId internally.
+ * If queryId is 0 then no query fingerprinting source has been enabled, so we
+ * act as if the extension was disabled: silently exit without doing any work.
*