On 2021/12/24 13:49, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>> I'm ok to remove the check "values[i] != NULL", but think that it's
>> better to keep the other check "*(values[i]) != '\0'" as it
>> is. Because *(values[i]) can be null character and it's a waste of
>> cycles to call process_pgfdw_appname() in that case.
>
> Right. I removed too much.
Thanks for the check! So I kept the check "*(values[i]) != '\0'" as it is
and pushed the patch. Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
