| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, "Seki, Eiji" <seki(dot)eiji(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: GetOldestXminExtend for ignoring arbitrary vacuum flags |
| Date: | 2017-02-15 21:42:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20170215214247.enkfdxkepd62ttfa@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-02-15 12:27:11 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 2/14/17 3:13 AM, Seki, Eiji wrote:
> >> +extern TransactionId GetOldestXmin(Relation rel, uint8 ignoreFlags);
> >
> >
> > My impression is that most other places that do this sort of thing just call
> > the argument 'flags', so as not to "lock in" a single idea of what the flags
> > are for. I can't readily think of another use for flags in GetOldestXmin,
> > but ISTM it's better to just go with "flags" instead of "ignoreFlags".
>
> I agree; also, many years ago a guy named Tom Lane told me that flags
> argument should typically be declared as type "int". I've followed
> that advice ever since.
Why is that? I think uint makes a lot more sense for flags where the
flags are individual bits that set/unset. Doing that with the sign bit
isn't a good idea.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-02-15 21:47:28 | Re: Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-02-15 21:03:38 | Re: Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function |