Thread: remove unused "caller" arg from stringToQualifiedNameList

remove unused "caller" arg from stringToQualifiedNameList

From
Alvaro Herrera
Date:
This function seems to have an argument that is no longer used (probably
leftover from when it used to report an error message?).  This rather
trivial patch removes it and fixes associated fallout.

--
Alvaro Herrera                        http://www.advogato.org/person/alvherre
"Before you were born your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They
got that way paying your bills, cleaning up your room and listening to you
tell them how idealistic you are."  -- Charles J. Sykes' advice to teenagers

Attachment

Re: remove unused "caller" arg from stringToQualifiedNameList

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> This function seems to have an argument that is no longer used (probably
> leftover from when it used to report an error message?).

Yeah, I recall having left the argument in place because it seemed like
we might want it again someday.  But that was for 7.4 which was awhile
ago.  There's probably not a strong argument to keep it, but on the
other hand is there a strong argument to remove it?

            regards, tom lane

Re: remove unused "caller" arg from stringToQualifiedNameList

From
Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > This function seems to have an argument that is no longer used (probably
> > leftover from when it used to report an error message?).
>
> Yeah, I recall having left the argument in place because it seemed like
> we might want it again someday.  But that was for 7.4 which was awhile
> ago.  There's probably not a strong argument to keep it, but on the
> other hand is there a strong argument to remove it?

Other than removing cruft, nope, I don't see any ...

In any case, this is an exported symbol so maybe it's not a good idea to
mess with it.  OTOH I checked PL/R and PL/php and neither uses it, so
this may not be a problem at all.

--
Alvaro Herrera                         http://www.flickr.com/photos/alvherre/
"The ability to monopolize a planet is insignificant
next to the power of the source"

Re: remove unused "caller" arg from stringToQualifiedNameList

From
"Jaime Casanova"
Date:
On 6/25/07, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > > This function seems to have an argument that is no longer used (probably
> > > leftover from when it used to report an error message?).
> >
> > Yeah, I recall having left the argument in place because it seemed like
> > we might want it again someday.  But that was for 7.4 which was awhile
> > ago.  There's probably not a strong argument to keep it, but on the
> > other hand is there a strong argument to remove it?
>
> Other than removing cruft, nope, I don't see any ...
>
> In any case, this is an exported symbol so maybe it's not a good idea to
> mess with it.  OTOH I checked PL/R and PL/php and neither uses it, so
> this may not be a problem at all.
>

FWIW, we remove the second argument in textToQualifiedNameList() two
years ago so i think this is just finishing what we already started,
IMHO anyway
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2005-05/msg00318.php

--
regards,
Jaime Casanova

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying
to produce bigger and better idiots.
So far, the universe is winning."
                                       Richard Cook

Re: remove unused "caller" arg from stringToQualifiedNameList

From
Tom Lane
Date:
"Jaime Casanova" <systemguards@gmail.com> writes:
> On 6/25/07, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> In any case, this is an exported symbol so maybe it's not a good idea to
>> mess with it.  OTOH I checked PL/R and PL/php and neither uses it, so
>> this may not be a problem at all.

> FWIW, we remove the second argument in textToQualifiedNameList() two
> years ago so i think this is just finishing what we already started,

True, we whack around APIs like this one in every release anyway ...
I don't have an objection to changing this in HEAD.

            regards, tom lane