Re: Interval for launching the table sync worker

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Interval for launching the table sync worker
Date: 2017-04-28 17:49:47
Message-ID: 9485a57c-4441-7435-2898-015b28cf7bac@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 4/27/17 21:20, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Isn't it better to use != NIL instead as follows?
>
> else if (table_state != NIL && last_start_times)

I'm not a fan of that in general, and it doesn't really add any clarity
here.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-04-28 17:53:06 Re: Crash when partition column specified twice
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-04-28 17:48:42 Re: Interval for launching the table sync worker