On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:26 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 05:30:08PM +1100, Peter Smith wrote: > > Oops. Perhaps I meant more like below -- in any case, the point was > > the same -- to ensure RS_INVAL_NONE is what returns if something > > unexpected happens. > > You are right that this could be a bit confusing, even if we should > never reach this state. How about avoiding to return the index of the > loop as result, as of the attached? Would you find that cleaner?
Looks neat! -- Bharath Rupireddy PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
