Re: Small code improvement for btree

On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Interesting. We learned elsewhere that it's better to integrate the
>> "!= 0" test as part of the macro definition; so a
>> better formulation of this patch would be to change the
>> P_INCOMPLETE_SPLIT macro and omit the comparison in the Assert. (See
>> commit 594e61a1de03 for an example).

Thank you for the information. The macros other than
P_INCOMPLETE_SPLIT in btree.h such as P_ISLEAF, P_ISROOT also doesn't
return booleans. Should we deal with them as well?

>>
>>
>>> - LockBuffer(hbuffer, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE);
>>> + LockBuffer(hbuffer, BT_READ);
>
> +1.
>
> One Linus Torvalds rant that I actually agreed with was a rant against
> the use of bool as a type in C code. It's fine, as long as you never
> forget that it's actually just another integer.
>
>> I think BT_READ and BT_WRITE are useless, and I'd rather get rid of
>> them ...
>
> Fair enough, but we should either use them consistently or not at all.
> I'm not especially concerned about which, as long as it's one of those
> two.
>

I definitely agreed.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center