Horton

Re: Out-of-memory error reports in libpq

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Date: 2021-07-29T10:18:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 7/29/21 3:01 AM, Peter Smith wrote:
> (This is not a code review - this is just to satisfy my curiosity)
>
> I've seen lots of code like this where I may have been tempted to use
> a ternary operator for readability, so I was wondering is there a PG
> convention to avoid such ternary operator assignments, or is it simply
> a personal taste thing, or is there some other reason?
>
> For example:
>
> if (msg)
>   res->errMsg = msg;
> else
>   res->errMsg = libpq_gettext("out of memory\n");
>
> VERSUS:
>
> res->errMsg = msg ? msg : libpq_gettext("out of memory\n");
>


A simple grep on the sources should disabuse you of any idea that there
is such a convention. The code is littered with examples of the ?: operator.


cheers


andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

Commits

  1. Improve libpq's handling of OOM during error message construction.

  2. In libpq, always append new error messages to conn->errorMessage.