On 22.05.25 01:48, Tom Lane wrote: > I did look at that one too. I think it's fine, because we're > dealing with a newly-created document which can't have a root node > yet. (Reinforcing this, Valgrind sees no leaks after applying > my patch.) I considered adding an assertion that that call returns > NULL, but concluded that it wasn't worth the notational hassle. > I'm not strongly set on that conclusion, though, if you think > differently.
I see. In that case I believe that at least a different comment explaining this decision would avoid confusion. Something like /* * This attaches root to doc, so we do not need to free it separately. * The return value of xmlDocSetRootElement (xmlNodePtr) is intentionally * ignored here, as it is guaranteed to be NULL in this specific context. * When using this function elsewhere, ensure to handle the return value * properly. */ Best regards, Jim
