At Sat, 22 Oct 2022 09:56:06 +0200, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote in > On 2022-Oct-21, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 05:53:25PM +0800, Richard Guo wrote: > > > > /* These conditions can not be both true */ > > > > If you do that, it would be a bit easier to read as of the following > > assertion instead? Like: > > Assert(!during_backup_start || > > sessionBackupState == SESSION_BACKUP_NONE); > > My intention here was that the Assert should be inside the block, that > is, we already know that at least one is true, and we want to make sure > that they are not *both* true. > > AFAICT the attached patch also fixes the bug without making the assert > weaker.
I'm fine with either of them, but.. The reason for that works the same way is that the if() block excludes the case of (!during_backup_start && S_B_RUNNING)<*1>. In other words the strictness is a kind of illusion [*a]. Actually the assertion does not detect the case <*1>. In this regard, moving the current assertion into the if() block might be confusing. regards, <*1>: It's evidently superfluous but "strictness" and "illusion" share the exactly the same pronounciation in Japanese "Ghen-Ka-Ku". -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
