Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean
Date: 2015-08-11 16:40:31
Message-ID: 23420.1439311231@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> #define GinPageIsLeaf(page) ( GinPageGetOpaque(page)->flags & GIN_LEAF )
> #define GinPageIsData(page) ( GinPageGetOpaque(page)->flags & GIN_DATA )
> #define GinPageIsList(page) ( GinPageGetOpaque(page)->flags & GIN_LIST )

> These macros don't actually return a boolean that's comparable with our
> true/false. That doesn't strike me as a good idea.

Agreed, this is risky. For example, if the bit being tested is to the
left of the lowest byte of "flags", storing the result into a bool
variable would do the wrong thing.

> I think we should add a !! to these macros to make sure it's an actual
> boolean.

Please write it more like

#define GinPageIsLeaf(page) ((GinPageGetOpaque(page)->flags & GIN_LEAF) != 0)

We do not use !! elsewhere for this purpose, and I for one find it a
pretty ugly locution.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-08-11 16:43:03 Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-08-11 16:35:32 Re: WIP: SCRAM authentication