From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Can we remove extra memset in BloomInitPage, GinInitPage and SpGistInitPage when we have it in PageInit? |
Date: | 2021-04-08 08:00:58 |
Message-ID: | CALj2ACW1=0cwwddFr6b1XiwCm+AAYSAX8brG=EfLB3HJ3LwpiA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 1:22 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 07:45:25AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 11:47 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> > <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> I wanted to comment out p->pd_flags = 0; in PageInit similar to the
> >> pd_prune_xid just for consistency.
> >> /* p->pd_prune_xid = InvalidTransactionId; done by above MemSet */
> >
> > As I said above, just for consistency, I would like to see if the
> > attached one line patch can be taken, even though it doesn't have any
> > impact.
>
> FWIW, I tend to prefer the existing style to keep around this code
> rather than commenting it out, as one could think to remove it, but I
> think that it can be important in terms of code comprehension when
> reading the area. So I quite like what 96ef3b8 has undone for
> pd_flags, but not much what cc59049 did back in 2007. That's a matter
> of taste, really.
Thanks! Since the main patch is committed I will go ahead and close
the CF entry.
With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-04-08 08:04:35 | Re: PATCH: Attempt to make dbsize a bit more consistent |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-04-08 07:54:56 | Re: SQL-standard function body |