On 2021/12/17 16:50, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Thus rewriting the code we're focusing on like the following would
> make sense to me.
>
>> if (strcmp(keywords[i], "application_name") == 0)
>> {
>> values[i] = process_pgfdw_appname(values[i]);
>>
>> /*
>> * Break if we have a non-empty string. If we end up failing with
>> * all candidates, fallback_application_name would work.
>> */
>> if (appanme[0] != '\0')
>> break;
>> }
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
thatcase.
> Thanks for revisiting.
>
>> #1. use "[unknown]"
>> #2. add the check but not use "[unknown]"
>> #3. don't add the check (i.e., what the current patch does)
>>
>> For now, I'm ok to choose #2 or #3.
>
> As I said before, given that we don't show "unkown" or somethig like
> as the fallback, I'm fine with not having a NULL check since anyway it
> bumps into SEGV immediately. In short I'm fine with #3 here.
Yep, let's use #3 approach.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
