From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: dcb314@hotmail.com
cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #15802: Comparison of a function returning boolean value
 using relational (<, >, <= or >=) operator
In-reply-to: <15802-f0911a97f0346526@postgresql.org>
References: <15802-f0911a97f0346526@postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Mon, 13 May 2019 08:56:54 -0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <16339.1557755393.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 09:49:53 -0400
Message-ID: <16340.1557755393@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> postgresql-11.3/src/interfaces/libpq/fe-misc.c:1060]: (style) Comparison of
> a function returning boolean value using relational (<, >, <= or >=)
> operator.
> Source code is
>        if (forRead && conn->ssl_in_use && pgtls_read_pending(conn) > 0)
> but
> ./src/interfaces/libpq/libpq-int.h:extern bool pgtls_read_pending(PGconn
> *conn);

It looks like the "> 0" belongs inside pgtls_read_pending, since
SSL_pending is documented to return an integer count.  This is
probably harmless with C99-style bools, but if we were doing it
like that before PG v12, it could be a live bug in the back
branches.  I'll check.

Thanks for the report!

			regards, tom lane