Re: [PATCH] libpq improvements and fixes

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.

> 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?

See patch attached.

regards,

Ranier Vilela