| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: concerns around pg_lsn |
| Date: | 2019-08-04 03:57:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20190804035701.GA7309@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Aug-04, Jeevan Ladhe wrote:
> Sure Michael, in the attached patch I have reverted the checks from
> pg_lsn_in_internal() and added Assert() per my original patch.
Can we please change the macro definition so that have_error is one of
the arguments? Having the variable be used inside the macro definition
but not appear literally in the call is quite confusing.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Migowski | 2019-08-04 05:54:15 | Re: Patch to clean Query after rewrite-and-analyze - reduces memusage up to 50% - increases TPS by up to 50% |
| Previous Message | Jeevan Ladhe | 2019-08-04 03:41:09 | Re: concerns around pg_lsn |