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. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
