On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:01:28 +0200
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > /*
> > * return true if attnum is out of range according to the tupdesc
> > */
> > if (attnum > tupleDesc->natts)
> > return true;
>
> I think the comment is more meaningfull before the change since it
> tells us how nonexisting columns are interpreted.
I think that the comment is bad either way. Comments should explain
the code, not repeat it. The above is not far removed from...
return 5; /* return the number 5 */
How about "check if attnum is out of range according to the tupdesc"
instead?
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 788 2246 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
IM: darcy@Vex.Net, VOIP: sip:darcy@Vex.Net
