On 18 March 2014 18:18, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 06:11:30PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 18 March 2014 18:01, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 04:17:53PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> > While I am not a fan of backpatching, the fact we are ignoring errors in >> >> > some critical cases seems the non-cosmetic parts should be backpatched. >> >> >> >> pg_resetxlog was not an offender here; its coding was sound. >> >> >> >> We shouldn't be discussing backpatching a patch that contains changes >> >> to coding style. >> > >> > I was going to remove the coding style changes to pg_resetxlog from the >> > backpatched portion. >> >> Why make style changes at all? A patch with no style changes would >> mean backpatch and HEAD versions would be the same. > > The old style had errno set in two places in the loop, while the new > style has it set in only one place.
Seems better to leave the previously-good coding in place. ISTM to be clearer to use simple C. You're doing this anyway for the backpatch, so I'm not causing you any more work. Better one patch than two. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers