On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 6:12 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > While reading this code, I noticed that function expr_allowed_in_node() > has a very strange API: it doesn't have any return convention at all > other than "if we didn't modify errdetail_str then all is good". I was > tempted to add an "Assert(*errdetail_msg == NULL)" at the start of it, > just to make sure that it is not called if a message is already set. > > I think it would be much saner to inline the few lines of that function > in its sole caller, as in the attached. >
LGTM. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
