"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Might I suggest the following: > + /* > + * For each action, modify procForm to type-safely set the new value. > + * However, because the SET clause is repeatable we handle it > + * a bit differently, modifying the underlying tuple directly. So > + * make sure to leave that conditional block for last. + */ Actually, the reason proconfig is handled differently is that it's a variable-length field, so it can't be represented in the C struct that we overlay onto the catalog tuple to access the fixed-width fields cheaply. I'm not sure that insisting that that stanza be last is especially useful advice for future hackers, because someday there might be more than one variable-length field that this function needs to update. regards, tom lane
