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.


Masahiko Sawada
NTT Open Source Software Center

Attachment: 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:

Reply via email to