On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 6:12 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> While reading this code, I noticed that function expr_allowed_in_node()
> has a very strange API: it doesn't have any return convention at all
> other than "if we didn't modify errdetail_str then all is good". I was
> tempted to add an "Assert(*errdetail_msg == NULL)" at the start of it,
> just to make sure that it is not called if a message is already set.
>
> I think it would be much saner to inline the few lines of that function
> in its sole caller, as in the attached.
>
LGTM.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
