Re: Remove unneeded cast in heap_xlog_lock.

From: Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Cc: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>, Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Remove unneeded cast in heap_xlog_lock.
Date: 2025-08-28 08:08:50
Message-ID: CALdSSPhCoLBj33HrE9eOYtz7J2kfdbKtk_p8ej8u8jZ-oTGOYQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 at 19:57, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 22.08.25 11:59, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2025-Aug-22, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> >
> >> I am uncertain about the delineation between when we make changes and
> >> when we refrain from doing so.
> >
> > I think this is natural work after 9c727360bcc7, before which
> > BufferGetPage() was a macro and strangely enough had its own cast
> > embedded. As I understand, the less casts we have, the better. There's
> > some other standardization work going on to remove unnecessary casts
> > elsewhere, so I'm not sure why we wouldn't do this.
>
> In the very first code import, BufferGetPage() was a regular function
> that returned Page. (I suppose it was then turned into a macro, and
> then back into an inline function.) Even in that first code import,
> some callers cast the return to (Page), and some not. So I suppose this
> style just crept in for some random and ancient reason and then got
> copied around inconsistently.

Thank you for clarifications.

> We should clean it up. Casts are bad.

I created CF [0] for this.

[0] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/6006/

--
Best regards,
Kirill Reshke

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Xuneng Zhou 2025-08-28 08:22:55 Re: Improve read_local_xlog_page_guts by replacing polling with latch-based waiting
Previous Message Nisha Moond 2025-08-28 07:53:53 Re: Avoid retaining conflict-related data when no tables are subscribed