| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Yet another small patch - reorderbuffer.c:1099 |
| Date: | 2016-09-05 00:52:36 |
| Message-ID: | 24716.1473036756@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2016-04-05 11:38:27 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> The current arrangement looks bizantine to me, for no reason. If we
>> think that one of the two branches might do something additional to the
>> list deletion, surely that will be in a separate stanza with its own
>> comment; and if we ever want to remove the list deletion from one of the
>> two cases (something that strikes me as unlikely) then we will need to
>> fix the comment, too.
> You realize it's two different lists they're deleted in the different
> branches?
I looked at this and can see some of the argument on both sides, but
if it's setting off static-analyzer warnings for some people, that
seems like a sufficient reason to change it. We certainly make more
significant changes than this in order to silence warnings.
I rewrote the comment a bit more and pushed it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-09-05 00:59:19 | Re: Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2016-09-05 00:47:54 | Re: Parallel build with MSVC |