D'Arcy J.M. Cain <da...@druid.net> > Although, the more I think about it, the more I think that the comment > is both confusing and superfluous. The code itself is much clearer.
Seriously, if there is any comment there at all, it should be a succinct explanation for why we didn't do this (which passes `make check-world`): --- a/src/backend/access/common/heaptuple.c +++ b/src/backend/access/common/heaptuple.c @@ -1323,6 +1323,8 @@ slot_attisnull(TupleTableSlot *slot, int attnum) HeapTuple tuple = slot->tts_tuple; TupleDesc tupleDesc = slot->tts_tupleDescriptor; + Assert(attnum <= tupleDesc->natts); + /* * system attributes are handled by heap_attisnull */ @@ -1342,12 +1344,6 @@ slot_attisnull(TupleTableSlot *slot, int attnum) return slot->tts_isnull[attnum - 1]; /* - * return NULL if attnum is out of range according to the tupdesc - */ - if (attnum > tupleDesc->natts) - return true; - - /* * otherwise we had better have a physical tuple (tts_nvalid should equal * natts in all virtual-tuple cases) */ -- Kevin Grittner EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
