On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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);
>>> 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
>> I definitely agreed.
> Attached updated patch. I'll add it to next CF.
Added to the next CF. Feedback and comment are very welcome.
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: