On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 2:48 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > > At Mon, 22 Nov 2021 15:38:23 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi > <horikyota....@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. *
