Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:> On 2020-Jul-09, Alvaro Herrera wrote:>> I think we should define InvalidXLogSegNo to be ~((uint64)0) and add a>> macro to test for that.
> That's overkill really. I just used zero. Running> contrib/test_decoding under valgrind, this now passes.
> I think I'd rather do away with the compare to zero, and initialize to> something else in GetWALAvailability, though. What we're doing seems> unclean and unclear.
Is zero really not a valid segment number?
regards, tom lane