Em sex., 14 de fev. de 2020 às 03:13, Michael Paquier <michael@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?