| From: | Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Stack-based tracking of per-node WAL/buffer usage |
| Date: | 2026-01-15 22:34:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAP53PkyOvXC7pWAiamvWth_JNeb=isrxX+PJT0pw_Hw5Czzf+Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 2:06 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I happened to be reading the code in this recent push [1] and saw this
> new macro:
>
> +#define INSTR_TIME_LT(x,y) \
> + ((x).ticks > (y).ticks)
>
> Is that macro name OK? It seemed backwards to me. Shouldn't it be
> called INSTR_TIME_GT because it is checking that x is "Greater Than"
> y?
Oh yeah, good catch. I think I must have thought of "larger than"
instead of "less than".
I think adjusting that to INSTR_TIME_GT makes sense, and is consistent
with how "lt" and "gt" is used elsewhere in the source.
Thanks,
Lukas
--
Lukas Fittl
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | surya poondla | 2026-01-15 22:39:39 | Re: [PATCH] tests: verify renamed index functionality in alter_table |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2026-01-15 22:05:44 | Re: Stack-based tracking of per-node WAL/buffer usage |