| From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Quan Zongliang <quanzongliang(at)yeah(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Consistently use the XLogRecPtrIsInvalid() macro |
| Date: | 2025-11-07 06:17:27 |
| Message-ID: | aQ2O99S+VjEZSf3/@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 08:48:11PM +0100, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-Nov-06, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
>
> > I see, I would have introduced XLogRecPtrIsInvalid() on the back branches only
> > if there is a need to (a bugfix that would make use of it). But yeah, I agree
> > that would add extra "unnecessary" work, so done as you suggested in the
> > attached. I checked that 0001 apply on the [14-18]_STABLE branches successfully.
>
> Okay, thanks, I have applied that one to all stable branches, except I
> didn't add the judgemental comment about XLogRecPtrIsInvalid().
>
> I also pushed 0002+0004+0005 together as one commit, so now we have
> XLogRecPtrIsValid() everywhere.
Thanks!
> I did a couple of minor transformations, where the new code would end
> doing "!XLogRecPtrIsValid(x) ? A : B" it seems clearer to remove the
> negation and invert the other two arguments in the ternary. We also had
> this assertion,
>
> - Assert(XLogRecPtrIsInvalid(state->istartpoint) == (state->istarttli == 0));
>
> which was being transformed to have a negation. I chose to negate the
> other side of the equality instead, that is,
>
> + Assert(XLogRecPtrIsValid(state->istartpoint) == (state->istarttli != 0));
>
> which also seems clearer.
Agree, will modify the .cocci scripts that way.
> Now only 0003 remains ... I would change the complaining version to 21
> there, because why not?
Now that XLogRecPtrIsValid() is available in back branches, I agree that we
can be less conservative and not wait until v24. v21 looks like good timing to
me.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kirill Reshke | 2025-11-07 06:25:59 | Re: transformJsonFuncExpr pathspec cache lookup failed |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-11-07 06:12:29 | Re: Sequence Access Methods, round two |