On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >
Attached updated patch. I'll add it to next CF. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
code_improvement_for_btree_v2.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
