On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:26 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 05:30:08PM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > Oops. Perhaps I meant more like below -- in any case, the point was
> > the same -- to ensure RS_INVAL_NONE is what returns if something
> > unexpected happens.
>
> You are right that this could be a bit confusing, even if we should
> never reach this state. How about avoiding to return the index of the
> loop as result, as of the attached? Would you find that cleaner?
Looks neat!
--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com