Re: XLByte* usage

Andres Freund escribió:
> On 2012-12-17 13:16:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > > On 2012-12-17 12:47:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> But, if the day ever comes when 64 bits doesn't seem like enough, I bet
> > >> we'd move to 128-bit integers, which will surely be available on all
> > >> platforms by then. So +1 for using plain comparisons --- in fact, I'd
> > >> vote for running around and ripping out the macros altogether. I had
> > >> already been thinking of fixing the places that are still using memset
> > >> to initialize XLRecPtrs to "invalid".
> >
> > > I thought about that and had guessed you would be against it because it
> > > would cause useless diversion of the branches? Otherwise I am all for
> > > it.
> >
> > That's the only argument I can see against doing it --- but Heikki's
> > patch was already pretty invasive in the same areas this would touch,
> > so I'm thinking this won't make back-patching much worse.
>
> I thought a while about this for while and decided its worth trying to
> this before the next review round of xlogreader.

I have applied these three patches, after merging for recent changes.
Thanks.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services