Re: XLByte* usage

On 2012-12-28 14:59:50 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.

Thanks!

Greetings,

Andres Freund

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