got it, thanks for the explanation. On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:34 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > > Junwang Zhao <[email protected]> writes: > > In function ItemPointerEquals, the ItemPointerGetBlockNumber > > already checked the ItemPointer if valid, there is no need > > to check it again in ItemPointerGetOffset, so use > > ItemPointerGetOffsetNumberNoCheck instead. > > I do not think this change is worth making. The point of > ItemPointerGetOffsetNumberNoCheck is not to save some cycles, > it's to be able to fetch the offset field in cases where it might > validly be zero. The assertion will be compiled out anyway in > production builds --- and even in assert-enabled builds, I'd kind > of expect the compiler to optimize away the duplicated tests. > > regards, tom lane
-- Regards Junwang Zhao
