| From: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix typo with logical connector (src/backend/commands/vacuumparallel.c) |
| Date: | 2022-08-19 14:15:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAEudQAoT92bVn3iWyjQyYRcY_1bYp8Kj02HBYJoGyvY8cvbRDg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Em sex., 19 de ago. de 2022 às 10:28, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> escreveu:
> Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > At function parallel_vacuum_process_all_indexes there is
> > a typo with a logical connector.
> > I think that correct is &&, because both of the operators are
> > bool types [1].
> > As a result, parallel vacuum workers can be incorrectly enabled.
>
> Since they're bools, the C spec requires them to promote to integer
> 0 or 1, therefore the & operator will yield the desired result.
> So there's not going to be any incorrect behavior.
It seems that you are right.
#include <stdio.h>
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
int main()
{
bool op1 = false;
bool op2 = true;
bool band;
bool cand;
band = op1 & op2;
printf("res=%d\n", band);
cand = op1 && op2;
printf("res=%d\n", cand);
}
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
results:
res=0
res=0
So, my assumption is incorrect.
regards,
Ranier Vilela
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2022-08-19 14:42:45 | Re: Trivial doc patch |
| Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2022-08-19 14:11:01 | Re: SQL/JSON features for v15 |