On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 01:06:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Zhihong Yu <z...@yugabyte.com> writes: >> It seems the variable can be initialized to the value of GUCNestLevel since >> later in the func: >> /* Roll back any GUC changes executed by index functions */ >> AtEOXact_GUC(false, save_nestlevel); > > That seems pretty inappropriate. If, thanks to some future thinko, > control were able to reach the AtEOXact_GUC call despite not having > called NewGUCNestLevel, we'd want that to fail.
+1 > It looks like > AtEOXact_GUC asserts nestLevel > 0, so that either 0 or -1 would > do as an "invalid" value; I'd lean a bit to using 0. I only chose -1 to follow a117ceb's example in amcheck. I have no preference. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
