Re: Small code improvement for btree

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Interesting. We learned elsewhere that it's better to integrate the
>>> "!= 0" test as part of the macro definition; so a
>>> better formulation of this patch would be to change the
>>> P_INCOMPLETE_SPLIT macro and omit the comparison in the Assert. (See
>>> commit 594e61a1de03 for an example).
>
> Thank you for the information. The macros other than
> P_INCOMPLETE_SPLIT in btree.h such as P_ISLEAF, P_ISROOT also doesn't
> return booleans. Should we deal with them as well?
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> - LockBuffer(hbuffer, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE);
>>>> + LockBuffer(hbuffer, BT_READ);
>>
>> +1.
>>
>> One Linus Torvalds rant that I actually agreed with was a rant against
>> the use of bool as a type in C code. It's fine, as long as you never
>> forget that it's actually just another integer.
>>
>>> I think BT_READ and BT_WRITE are useless, and I'd rather get rid of
>>> them ...
>>
>> Fair enough, but we should either use them consistently or not at all.
>> I'm not especially concerned about which, as long as it's one of those
>> two.
>>
>
> I definitely agreed.
>

Attached updated patch. I'll add it to next CF.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center