> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > Oh,I was just looking at heapoverride stuff quite accidentally.
> > Yes, this call is ugly and should be replaced by CommandCounterIncrement().
>
> OK, I'm running a build now with setheapoverride calls removed.
> Will see what happens.
>
> About half of the setheapoverride calls surrounded heap_update()
> (formerly called heap_replace()) calls. AFAICS there is no need
> for these calls unless heap_update itself needs them --- but there
> are many calls to heap_update that do not have setheapoverride.
> Perhaps heap_replace once needed setheapoverride but no longer does?
>
> I am going to try just removing these calls without adding a
> CommandCounterIncrement to replace them. If anyone knows that
> this is a bad idea, let me know!
Go for it. The setheapoverride name was so confusing, people just
probably left it in, not knowing what it did.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026