| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Assert in heapgettup_pagemode() fails due to underlying buffer change |
| Date: | 2024-06-07 12:46:51 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaNY0cKKcuUo3wQub6OUeyEyU9ySgSTEe51ToJTazC-XQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 4:05 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> > static void
> > -ZeroBuffer(Buffer buffer, ReadBufferMode mode)
> > +ZeroBuffer(Buffer buffer, ReadBufferMode mode, bool zero)
>
> This change makes the API very strange. Should the function be called
> ZeroAndLockBuffer() instead? Then the addition of a "bool zero"
> argument makes a lot more sense.
I agree that's better, but it still looks a bit weird. You have to
realize that 'bool zero' means 'is already zeroed' here -- or at
least, I guess that's the intention. But then I wonder why you'd call
a function called ZeroAndLockBuffer if all you need to do is
LockBuffer.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-06-07 12:48:55 | Re: Conflict Detection and Resolution |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-06-07 12:43:20 | Re: question regarding policy for patches to out-of-support branches |