On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 2:46 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 07:09:29PM +1000, Peter Smith wrote: > > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 6:09 PM Bharath Rupireddy > > <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 12:36 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > The function GetSubscriptionRelations was declaring ScanKeyData > > > > skey[2]; but actually > > > > only uses 1 scan key. It seems like the code was cut/paste from other > > > > nearby functions > > > > which really are using 2 keys. > > > > > > > > PSA a trivial patch to declare the correct number of keys for this > > > > function. > > > > > > +1 for the change. It looks like a cut/paste type introduced by the > > > commit 7c4f52409a. > > > > > > A comment on the patch: why do we need to declare an array of 1 > > > element ScanKeyData skey[1];? Instead, can we just do ScanKeyData > > > skey;? > > > > IMO declaring skey[1] is better because then the code can share the > > same pattern as every other ScanData skey[n] code. > > > > Please search PG source code for "ScanData skey[1];" - there are > > dozens of precedents where other people felt the same as me for > > declaring single keys. > > AFAICT there are 73 occurences vs 62 of the "Scandata skey;". I don't think > there's a huge consensus for one over the other.
I think both Scandata skey[1]; and Scandata skey; are used. But IMHO using Scandata skey; looks better. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
