Re: Remove useless casting to the same type
От
Bertrand Drouvot
Тема
Re: Remove useless casting to the same type
Дата
Msg-id
aSm02GCrSWG1pnbW@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
Ответ на
Re: Remove useless casting to the same type (Peter Eisentraut)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Remove useless casting to the same type Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
Re: Remove useless casting to the same type Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Re: Remove useless casting to the same type Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Re: Remove useless casting to the same type Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
Re: Remove useless casting to the same type Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Re: Remove useless casting to the same type Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
Re: Remove useless casting to the same type Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Re: Remove useless casting to the same type David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com>
Re: Remove useless casting to the same type Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Re: Remove useless casting to the same type Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Re: Remove useless casting to the same type Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Re: Remove useless casting to the same type Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
Re: Remove useless casting to the same type Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Re: Remove useless casting to the same type Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
Re: Remove useless casting to the same type Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Re: Remove useless casting to the same type Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
Hi, On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 02:20:25PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 28.11.25 10:06, Bertrand Drouvot wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 09:11:16AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > I think this whole thing could be simplified by overlaying a uint32 over > > > "data" and just accessing the array fields normally. See attached patch. > > > > Indeed, that's a nice simplification. > > > > - data += sizeof(uint32) * 2; > > > > Is it safe? I mean could XLH_SPLIT_META_UPDATE_MASKS and XLH_SPLIT_META_UPDATE_SPLITPOINT > > be set simultaneously? > > Yes, that's what was probably intended. But apparently not exercised in the > tests. > > So maybe more like this patch. + uint32 lowmask = uidata[uidatacount++]; + uint32 highmask = uidata[uidatacount++]; good idea! That way that's easier to add more branches/flags later if we need to. Also, I think that's safe thanks to XLogRecGetBlockData() returning a MAXALIGNed buffer. Not sure if it's worth to add a comment. I think that a comment was not needed with the original code as it was using memcpy() instead. Except for the nit comment remark above, LGTM. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления