Обсуждение: [PATCH] Remove redundant Assert() calls in report_namespace_conflict()

Hi all,

I noticed that report_namespace_conflict() has Assert(OidIsValid(nspOid)) at the function entry, and the same assertion
isrepeated in each switch case. These duplicate assertions are redundant since the check at the top already covers all
cases.
Attached patch removes the 6 redundant assertions to make the code a bit cleaner.

```
static void
report_namespace_conflict(Oid classId, const char *name, Oid nspOid)
{
  char     *msgfmt;

  Assert(OidIsValid(nspOid));

  switch (classId)
  {
    case ConversionRelationId:
      Assert(OidIsValid(nspOid));
      msgfmt = gettext_noop("conversion \"%s\" already exists in schema \"%s\"");
      break;
    case StatisticExtRelationId:
      Assert(OidIsValid(nspOid));
      msgfmt = gettext_noop("statistics object \"%s\" already exists in schema \"%s\"");
      break;
    case TSParserRelationId:
      Assert(OidIsValid(nspOid));
      msgfmt = gettext_noop("text search parser \"%s\" already exists in schema \"%s\"");
      break;
    case TSDictionaryRelationId:
      Assert(OidIsValid(nspOid));
      msgfmt = gettext_noop("text search dictionary \"%s\" already exists in schema \"%s\"");
      break;
    case TSTemplateRelationId:
      Assert(OidIsValid(nspOid));
      msgfmt = gettext_noop("text search template \"%s\" already exists in schema \"%s\"");
      break;
    case TSConfigRelationId:
      Assert(OidIsValid(nspOid));
      msgfmt = gettext_noop("text search configuration \"%s\" already exists in schema \"%s\"");
      break;
    default:
      elog(ERROR, "unsupported object class: %u", classId);
      break;
  }

  ereport(ERROR,
      (errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_OBJECT),
       errmsg(msgfmt, name, get_namespace_name(nspOid))));
}
```

--
Regards,
Man Zeng
www.openhalo.org

On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 02:57:00AM +0500, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> Yes, this patch looks valid

It looks to me just a copy-pasto when this code has been written.
Let's clean up that.
--
Michael

Hi,

> > Yes, this patch looks valid

> It looks to me just a copy-pasto when this code has been written.
> Let's clean up that.

Thanks for your comment. I thought so too.

--
Regards,
Man Zeng
www.openhalo.org

On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 12:51:17PM +0800, zengman wrote:
> Thanks for your comment. I thought so too.

Applied as 2a6ce34b55e1.
--
Michael