| From: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Misleading comment in tuplesort_set_bound |
| Date: | 2019-09-05 21:10:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAAaqYe9jgGUn8dMCDipb8o6Rfz4_tOEVMvdOgmjQ25n3W585iA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Yes, planning on it, just a bit behind right now so will likely be a
few more days at least.
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 4:57 PM Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant
<alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2019-Aug-26, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
> > I think the comment is fine as-is. Perhaps the code would be clearer
> > though, if we merged those two asserts into one?
> >
> > /* Assert we're called before loading any tuples */
> > Assert(state->status == TSS_INITIAL &&
> > state->memtupcount == 0);
>
> Makes sense to me. James, do you want to submit a new patch?
>
> > I'm not totally sure about the usefulness/relevance of the two
> > assertions following these, but they could likely do with their
> > own comment(s), because this one surely isn't covering them.
>
>
> --
> Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-09-05 21:11:35 | Re: BUG #15977: Inconsistent behavior in chained transactions |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant | 2019-09-05 20:56:57 | Re: Misleading comment in tuplesort_set_bound |