Re: [HACKERS] Small code improvement for btree

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Geoghegan
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Small code improvement for btree
Дата
Msg-id CAH2-WznC3ijK3fMU97sr7Hx_Pc4ptCfBc2XRA_EfJd0XwcCHCA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Small code improvement for btree  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Small code improvement for btree  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Interesting.  We learned elsewhere that it's better to integrate the
> "!= 0" test as part of the macro definition; so a
> better formulation of this patch would be to change the
> P_INCOMPLETE_SPLIT macro and omit the comparison in the Assert.  (See
> commit 594e61a1de03 for an example).
>
>
>> -               LockBuffer(hbuffer, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE);
>> +               LockBuffer(hbuffer, BT_READ);

+1.

One Linus Torvalds rant that I actually agreed with was a rant against
the use of bool as a type in C code. It's fine, as long as you never
forget that it's actually just another integer.

> I think BT_READ and BT_WRITE are useless, and I'd rather get rid of
> them ...

Fair enough, but we should either use them consistently or not at all.
I'm not especially concerned about which, as long as it's one of those
two.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Amit Kapila
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing
Следующее
От: Amit Kapila
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing