Re: Consistently use the XLogRecPtrIsInvalid() macro

On 2025-Nov-06, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:

> Subject: [PATCH v5 1/4] Introduce XLogRecPtrIsValid() and replace
> XLogRecPtrIsInvalid() calls

> XLogRecPtrIsInvalid() is inconsistent with the affirmative form of other
> *IsValid() macros and leads to awkward double negative.
>
> This commit introduces XLogRecPtrIsValid() and replace all the
> XLogRecPtrIsInvalid() calls.
>
> It also adds a comment mentioning that new code should use XLogRecPtrIsValid()
> instead of XLogRecPtrIsInvalid() and that XLogRecPtrIsInvalid() could be
> deprecated in the future.

I think we should do this in two steps. First, introduce
XLogRecPtrIsValid(), don't use it anywhere, backpatch this one. This
would alleviate potential backpatching pains when using the new macro in
future bugfixes. Second, change calls of the old function to the new
one, no backpatch.

> From 22f02ca0618d9f2e34de8fa084127bf500d75603 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2025 06:33:01 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH v5 2/4] Introduce PG_DEPRECATED() and deprecate
> XLogRecPtrIsInvalid()

The uppercase name looks a bit ugly. We use lowercase for other uses of
__attribute__, e.g. pg_attribute_aligned(). Also, probably add
"attribute" to the name, for consistency with those.

--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/