Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yury Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean
Date: 2016-02-13 13:43:59
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSTc60qZpAMxUjMN4shWyhJbkpZimQR5yqnFA-j8AsmmA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> On February 12, 2016 5:29:44 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> We should standardize on the "((var & FLAG) != 0)"
>>> pattern, which works reliably in all cases.
>
>> That's what the second version of my patch, and I presume Michael's updated one as well, does. I think the only open question is how far to backpatch. While annoying work, I think we should go all the way.
>
> I don't object to that, if someone wants to do the work. A good argument
> for it is that we'd otherwise be laying a nasty trap for future
> back-patched bug fixes, which might well rely on the cleaned-up behavior.

From the MSVC-only perspective, that's down to 9.3, but it would
definitely make sense to backpatch 2 versions further down to
facilitate future bug fix integration, so +1 to get that down to 9.1.
Andres, I guess that you are on that? That's your patch after all.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2016-02-13 13:51:38 Re: Defaults for replication/backup
Previous Message Greg Stark 2016-02-13 13:41:29 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add some isolation tests for deadlock detection and resolution.