Re: [HACKERS] Small code improvement for btree

2017-09-18 Thread Masahiko Sawada
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Doug Doole writes: >> Looks good to me. >> The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer > > Pushed. Grepping found a few more places that should be changed to > use these macros rather than

Re: [HACKERS] Small code improvement for btree

2017-09-18 Thread Tom Lane
Doug Doole writes: > Looks good to me. > The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer Pushed. Grepping found a few more places that should be changed to use these macros rather than referencing btpo_flags directly, so I did that. I tend to agree with Alvaro that

Re: [HACKERS] Small code improvement for btree

2017-09-14 Thread Doug Doole
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: tested, passed Documentation:not tested Looks good to me. The new status of this patch is: Ready for

Re: [HACKERS] Small code improvement for btree

2017-08-09 Thread Masahiko Sawada
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Small code improvement for btree

2017-08-08 Thread Masahiko Sawada
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >>> Interesting. We learned elsewhere that it's better to

Re: [HACKERS] Small code improvement for btree

2017-08-06 Thread Masahiko Sawada
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Interesting. We learned elsewhere that it's better to integrate the >> "!= 0" test as part of the macro definition; so a >> better

Re: [HACKERS] Small code improvement for btree

2017-08-04 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera 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

Re: [HACKERS] Small code improvement for btree

2017-08-04 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Masahiko Sawada wrote: > While hacking the btree code I found two points we can improve in nbtxlog.c. > > @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ _bt_clear_incomplete_split(XLogReaderState > *record, uint8 block_id) > Pagepage = (Page) BufferGetPage(buf); > BTPageOpaque

[HACKERS] Small code improvement for btree

2017-08-04 Thread Masahiko Sawada
Hi, While hacking the btree code I found two points we can improve in nbtxlog.c. @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ _bt_clear_incomplete_split(XLogReaderState *record, uint8 block_id) Pagepage = (Page) BufferGetPage(buf); BTPageOpaque pageop = (BTPageOpaque)