From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, kingsboa(at)amazon(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Null commitTS bug |
Date: | 2022-01-17 04:01:25 |
Message-ID: | 3917423.1642392085@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 11:17:24AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>> I found some confusing lines around but they need not a fix
>> considering back-patching conflict?
>>> i += j - i + 1;
> I am not sure. Do you have anything specific in mind? Perhaps
> something that would help in making the code logic easier to follow?
Isn't that a very bad way to write "i = j + 1"?
I agree with Horiguchi-san that
for (i = 0, headxid = xid;;)
is not great style either. A for-loop ought to be used to control the
number of iterations, not as a confusing variable initialization.
I think more idiomatic would be
headxid = xid;
i = 0;
for (;;)
which makes it clear that this is not where the loop control is.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2022-01-17 04:18:49 | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |
Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2022-01-17 03:59:33 | Re: Add sub-transaction overflow status in pg_stat_activity |