On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 06:47:57PM -0800, Mark Dilger wrote:
> There is something unusual about comparing a XLogSegNo variable in
> this way, but it seems to go back to 2014 when the replication slots
> were introduced in commit 858ec11858a914d4c380971985709b6d6b7dd6fc,
> and XLogSegNo was unsigned then, too. Depending on how you look at
> it, this could be a thinko, or it could be defensive programming
> against future changes to the XLogSegNo typedef. I’m betting it was
> defensive programming, given the context. As such, I don’t think it
> would be appropriate to remove this defense in your patch.
Yeah. To e honest, I am not actually sure if it is worth bothering
about any of those three places.
--
Michael