Re: guc: make dereference style consistent in check_backtrace_functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

zhanghu <kongbaik228@gmail.com> 于2026年2月27日周五 16:46写道：
>
>
>
> Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> 于2026年2月27日周五 09:34写道：
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 26, 2026, at 20:37, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > There is at least one more place in the code where this is done.
>> >
>>
>> I did a search with the command: grep -RInE '\*[[:space:]]*[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z0-9_]*\[0\]' src contrib --include='*.c'
>>
>> Excluding irrelevant results, there are 3 more occurrences:
>>
>> 1 - contrib/basic_archive/basic_archive.c line 105
>> ```
>>         if (*newval == NULL || *newval[0] == '\0')
>>                 return true;
>> ```
>>
>> Here, the code checks *newval first, which implies that the subsequent *newval[0] is unintentional syntax.
>>
>> 2 - src/interfaces/ecpg/pgtypeslib/interval.c line 62
>> ```
>> int
>> DecodeInterval(char **field, int *ftype, int nf,        /* int range, */
>>                            int *dtype, struct /* pg_ */ tm *tm, fsec_t *fsec)
>> {
>>   ...
>>         if (IntervalStyle == INTSTYLE_SQL_STANDARD && *field[0] == '-')
>>         {
>>                 /* Check for additional explicit signs */
>>                 bool            more_signs = false;
>>
>>                 for (i = 1; i < nf; i++)
>>                 {
>>                         if (*field[i] == '-' || *field[i] == '+')
>>                         {
>>                                 more_signs = true;
>>                                 break;
>>                         }
>>                 }
>> ```
>>
>> 3 - src/backend/utils/adt/datatime.c line 3522
>> ```
>> int
>> DecodeInterval(char **field, int *ftype, int nf, int range,
>>                            int *dtype, struct pg_itm_in *itm_in)
>> {
>>  ...
>>         if (IntervalStyle == INTSTYLE_SQL_STANDARD && nf > 0 && *field[0] == '-')
>>         {
>>                 force_negative = true;
>>                 /* Check for additional explicit signs */
>>                 for (i = 1; i < nf; i++)
>>                 {
>>                         if (*field[i] == '-' || *field[i] == '+')
>>                         {
>>                                 force_negative = false;
>>                                 break;
>>                         }
>>                 }
>>         }
>> ```
>>
>> Where 2&3 makes this patch more interesting.
>>
>> Both occurrences are inside functions named DecodeInterval. For non-zero i, the code also performs *field[i]:
>>
>> Given this code has been there for years, I don’t believe it is a bug. I checked the callers of DecodeInterval in
bothfiles and found that field is defined as: 
>> ```
>>     char *field[MAXDATEFIELDS];
>> ```
>>
>> This explains why *field[i] works; it is doing the intended thing by getting the first character of the string at
arrayposition i. 
>>
>> However, since the precedence between the [] and * operators frequently confuses people, I suggest adding
parenthesesto make the intention explicit as *(field[i]). Furthermore, I think we should change the function signatures
touse the type char *field[] to reflect the actual type the functions expect. If a caller were to pass a true char **
typedfield to DecodeInterval, the current logic would result in a bug. 
>>
>> See the attached diff for my suggested changes.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> --
>> Chao Li (Evan)
>> HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
>> https://www.highgo.com/
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thank you all for the reviews and detailed feedback.
>>
>> Álvaro, thanks for pointing out that there were additional
>> occurrences elsewhere in the tree. I have updated the original
>> patch to address those cases; the revised version is attached
>> as v2-0001.
>>
>> I also appreciate the  review and suggestions from
>> Chao and Junwang.
>>
>> Regarding the additional changes suggested by Chao: they go
>> somewhat beyond the original scope of my original patch.
>> To keep the discussion concrete, I have included Chao’s proposed
>> diff as a separate patch (v2-0002) so it can be reviewed independently.
>>
>> I have reviewed v2-0002 locally, and it looks good to me.
>>
>> Thanks again for the guidance.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Zhang Hu
>>
>>

Hi,

I am planning to add this patch to the current CommitFest, but when
logging in to commitfest.postgresql.org I get the message:

“You have not passed the cool off period yet.”

It seems my account is still within the cool-off period after registration.

Could someone please add this patch to the CommitFest on my behalf?

Thanks.

Best regards,
Zhang Hu