| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Use XLogRecPtrIsValid() instead of negated XLogRecPtrIsInvalid |
| Date: | 2026-04-10 14:46:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwEuEd2StEYuP9vj+jCFT=hQbX8xcQeq8=Kj8r9xT3vmyg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 3:11 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This small cleanup patch updates src/bin/pg_waldump/archive_waldump.c
> to use the recently introduced XLogRecPtrIsValid() helper instead of
> negating XLogRecPtrIsInvalid(). The current code uses double-negative
> checks such as:
> Assert(!XLogRecPtrIsInvalid(privateInfo->startptr));
> if (!XLogRecPtrIsInvalid(privateInfo->endptr))
>
> This patch changes them to:
> Assert(XLogRecPtrIsValid(privateInfo->startptr));
> if (XLogRecPtrIsValid(privateInfo->endptr))
>
> This improves readability without changing behavior. The attached
> patch has the changes for the same.
Commit a2b02293bc6 switched various places to use XLogRecPtrIsValid(),
but it looks like later commits accidentally introduced uses of
XLogRecPtrIsInvalid() again. So +1 for this change.
Also, that commit replaced direct comparisons with InvalidXLogRecPtr with
XLogRecPtrIsValid(). I noticed two such comparisons [1]. Should these be
updated as well?
Regards,
[1]
$ git grep -E "[=\!]= InvalidXLogRecPtr"
src/backend/commands/repack_worker.c: Assert(ctx->reader->EndRecPtr
!= InvalidXLogRecPtr);
src/backend/replication/walreceiver.c: applyPtr = (latestApplyPtr ==
InvalidXLogRecPtr) ?
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2026-04-10 14:49:42 | Re: Documenting coding style |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2026-04-10 14:45:44 | Re: Documenting coding style |