Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.400.21\))
Subject: Re: [Bug][patch]: After dropping the last label from a property graph
 element, invoking pg_get_propgraphdef() triggers an assertion failure
From: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c707f43b-98c9-4fe1-a3e7-05e290cdb5af@eisentraut.org>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2026 11:01:27 +0800
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>,
 SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram@gmail.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <42586CE9-15C1-42C2-A75D-50FD4B949141@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAHg+QDeP=mTHTV48R23zKMy1SBmCKZ_L7-z5zKnYyw+K0x-gCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAExHW5tsOK7ja2dMykD_qQSLwsuZxCTHx_jFyx-7-O+9WRBDXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHg+QDcXxmeiuySsyR5K=8Wk9Pq2sZ_4HNb6EMonN=yjLz_fyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAExHW5t2YtTMnK7qbvL++pBet-5B8bzgU+8wMcC5aqZwBH0C9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHg+QDdAoW2cU2Wa-yKQs2awHxc19mkHGaAvDUZN=PZUDVsD=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAExHW5uThebnwqyWHrsF2Z+no-fT8VrM0Yj+RU7YWrYzdavUZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAExHW5tiOi=8Oq5Tza8gNz_jYmbWv+vb+p2fARUbfGnm-m7-9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <0E47B575-A8AE-4366-AD73-7A25BF0D7815@gmail.com>
 <c707f43b-98c9-4fe1-a3e7-05e290cdb5af@eisentraut.org>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/42586CE9-15C1-42C2-A75D-50FD4B949141%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk


> On May 4, 2026, at 22:47, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> =
wrote:
>=20
> On 29.04.26 14:58, Chao Li wrote:
>> As Alvaro commented at [1], I added 0003 to use OidIsValid macro. =
0001 and 0002 are unchanged.
>> [1]https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/02fe13db-4fba-4e9d-9b4c- =
e6271a133502@app.fastmail.com
>=20
> I'm personally not on board with that coding style rule.  At least I =
don't consider this patch necessary right now as we're working toward =
stabilizing the current code.
>=20

In the current code in propgraphcmds.c, the style is already =
inconsistent. I see three forms:

At line 434:
```
            if (OidIsValid(opc))
```

At line 754:
```
    if (!labeloid)
```

At lne 1302:
```
    if (pgrelid =3D=3D InvalidOid)
```

Anyway, I don=E2=80=99t have a strong opinion here, so please feel free =
to discard 0003.

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/