Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tt653-008ZtQ-9j for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2025 14:32:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tt651-0092wq-Lz for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2025 14:32:07 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tt651-0092wh-Dg for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2025 14:32:07 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1tt64z-002oni-2A for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2025 14:32:06 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 52EEW48g3055987; Fri, 14 Mar 2025 10:32:04 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: pm91.arapov@gmail.com cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #18850: REDUNDANT_COMPARISON.ALWAYS_FALSE Redundant comparison In-reply-to: <18850-20d329c520d6a64e@postgresql.org> References: <18850-20d329c520d6a64e@postgresql.org> Comments: In-reply-to PG Bug reporting form message dated "Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:16:06 -0000" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3055985.1741962724.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 10:32:04 -0400 Message-ID: <3055986.1741962724@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk PG Bug reporting form writes: > REDUNDANT_COMPARISON.ALWAYS_FALSE Redundant comparison Let's see, in #18848 and #18849 you were complaining about non-robust code, but here you want to remove robustness? I think it's fine as-is. (The back story here is that we used to support postfix operators, so the earlier error for !OidIsValid(typeId2) postdates this bit. While I don't think that support is ever coming back, I'm disinclined to remove a couple of lines that would be important for it.) regards, tom lane