Thread: Remove unnecessary else branch
Hi,
I found in guc-file.l we can omit the else branch in AbsoluteConfigLocation().
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc-file.l b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc-file.l
index c98e220295..9d4b3d7236 100644
--- a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc-file.l
+++ b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc-file.l
@@ -522,23 +522,21 @@ AbsoluteConfigLocation(const char *location, const char *calling_file)
if (is_absolute_path(location))
return pstrdup(location);
+
+ if (calling_file != NULL)
+ {
+ strlcpy(abs_path, calling_file, sizeof(abs_path));
+ get_parent_directory(abs_path);
+ join_path_components(abs_path, abs_path, location);
+ canonicalize_path(abs_path);
+ }
else
{
- if (calling_file != NULL)
- {
- strlcpy(abs_path, calling_file, sizeof(abs_path));
- get_parent_directory(abs_path);
- join_path_components(abs_path, abs_path, location);
- canonicalize_path(abs_path);
- }
- else
- {
- AssertState(DataDir);
- join_path_components(abs_path, DataDir, location);
- canonicalize_path(abs_path);
- }
- return pstrdup(abs_path);
+ AssertState(DataDir);
+ join_path_components(abs_path, DataDir, location);
+ canonicalize_path(abs_path);
}
+ return pstrdup(abs_path);
}
--
Best regards
Japin Li
On 13/10/2020 16:30, Li Japin wrote: > Hi, > > I found in guc-file.l we can omit the else branch in AbsoluteConfigLocation(). It will compile the same, so it's just a matter of code readability or taste which style is better here. I think we should leave it alone, it's fine as it is. - Heikki
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 6:37 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
On 13/10/2020 16:30, Li Japin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found in guc-file.l we can omit the else branch in AbsoluteConfigLocation().
It will compile the same, so it's just a matter of code readability or
taste which style is better here. I think we should leave it alone, it's
fine as it is.
- Heikki
I agree with Heikki from the code execution point of view.
"canonicalize_path(abs_path);" statement is also condition independent and can be pulled out of both if and else blocks. Removing unnecessary statements makes the code more readable, but it is a matter of choice/style.
On Oct 13, 2020, at 9:59 PM, Hamid Akhtar <hamid.akhtar@gmail.com> wrote:On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 6:37 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:On 13/10/2020 16:30, Li Japin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found in guc-file.l we can omit the else branch in AbsoluteConfigLocation().
It will compile the same, so it's just a matter of code readability or
taste which style is better here. I think we should leave it alone, it's
fine as it is.
- HeikkiI agree with Heikki from the code execution point of view.
"canonicalize_path(abs_path);" statement is also condition independent and can be pulled out of both if and else blocks. Removing unnecessary statements makes the code more readable, but it is a matter of choice/style.
+1
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc-file.l b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc-file.l
index c98e220295..b3549665ef 100644
--- a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc-file.l
+++ b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc-file.l
@@ -522,23 +522,21 @@ AbsoluteConfigLocation(const char *location, const char *calling_file)
if (is_absolute_path(location))
return pstrdup(location);
+
+ if (calling_file != NULL)
+ {
+ strlcpy(abs_path, calling_file, sizeof(abs_path));
+ get_parent_directory(abs_path);
+ join_path_components(abs_path, abs_path, location);
+ }
else
{
- if (calling_file != NULL)
- {
- strlcpy(abs_path, calling_file, sizeof(abs_path));
- get_parent_directory(abs_path);
- join_path_components(abs_path, abs_path, location);
- canonicalize_path(abs_path);
- }
- else
- {
- AssertState(DataDir);
- join_path_components(abs_path, DataDir, location);
- canonicalize_path(abs_path);
- }
- return pstrdup(abs_path);
+ AssertState(DataDir);
+ join_path_components(abs_path, DataDir, location);
}
+
+ canonicalize_path(abs_path);
+ return pstrdup(abs_path);
}
--
Best regards
Japin Li
On Oct 13, 2020, at 9:59 PM, Hamid Akhtar <hamid.akhtar@gmail.com> wrote:On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 6:37 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:On 13/10/2020 16:30, Li Japin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found in guc-file.l we can omit the else branch in AbsoluteConfigLocation().
It will compile the same, so it's just a matter of code readability or
taste which style is better here. I think we should leave it alone, it's
fine as it is.
- HeikkiI agree with Heikki from the code execution point of view.
"canonicalize_path(abs_path);" statement is also condition independent and can be pulled out of both if and else blocks. Removing unnecessary statements makes the code more readable, but it is a matter of choice/style.
+1
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc-file.l b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc-file.l
index c98e220295..b3549665ef 100644
--- a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc-file.l
+++ b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc-file.l
@@ -522,23 +522,21 @@ AbsoluteConfigLocation(const char *location, const char *calling_file)
if (is_absolute_path(location))
return pstrdup(location);
+
+ if (calling_file != NULL)
+ {
+ strlcpy(abs_path, calling_file, sizeof(abs_path));
+ get_parent_directory(abs_path);
+ join_path_components(abs_path, abs_path, location);
+ }
else
{
- if (calling_file != NULL)
- {
- strlcpy(abs_path, calling_file, sizeof(abs_path));
- get_parent_directory(abs_path);
- join_path_components(abs_path, abs_path, location);
- canonicalize_path(abs_path);
- }
- else
- {
- AssertState(DataDir);
- join_path_components(abs_path, DataDir, location);
- canonicalize_path(abs_path);
- }
- return pstrdup(abs_path);
+ AssertState(DataDir);
+ join_path_components(abs_path, DataDir, location);
}
+
+ canonicalize_path(abs_path);
+ return pstrdup(abs_path);
}
--
Best regards
Japin Li
Li Japin <japinli@hotmail.com> writes:
> I agree with Heikki from the code execution point of view.
> In code execution point of view they are same, however, the code is for user, i think the readability is also
important.
There is another consideration here, which is avoiding creating
back-patching hazards from gratuitous cross-branch code differences.
If you need to rewrite a chunk of logic anyway, then fixing
small cosmetic issues in it is fine. Otherwise I think "leave
well enough alone" is a good guiding principle.
regards, tom lane