On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Interesting.  We learned elsewhere that it's better to integrate the
>> "!= 0" test as part of the macro definition; so a
>> better formulation of this patch would be to change the
>> P_INCOMPLETE_SPLIT macro and omit the comparison in the Assert.  (See
>> commit 594e61a1de03 for an example).

Thank you for the information. The macros other than
P_INCOMPLETE_SPLIT in btree.h such as P_ISLEAF, P_ISROOT also doesn't
return booleans. Should we deal with them as well?

>>> -               LockBuffer(hbuffer, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE);
>>> +               LockBuffer(hbuffer, BT_READ);
> +1.
> One Linus Torvalds rant that I actually agreed with was a rant against
> the use of bool as a type in C code. It's fine, as long as you never
> forget that it's actually just another integer.
>> I think BT_READ and BT_WRITE are useless, and I'd rather get rid of
>> them ...
> Fair enough, but we should either use them consistently or not at all.
> I'm not especially concerned about which, as long as it's one of those
> two.

I definitely agreed.


Masahiko Sawada
NTT Open Source Software Center

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to