On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 10:46 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Yeah, I've noticed this inconsistency too. I doubt we want to change > > the macro definition or its name, but +1 for expanding the comment. > > Your proposed wording seems sufficient. > > +1
OK, committed. I assume nobody is going to complain that such changes are off-limits during feature freeze, but maybe I'll be unpleasantly surprised. > > I remember being bit by this inconsistency while fixing data corruption > > problems, but I'm not sure what, if anything, should we do about it. > > Maybe there's a perfect spot where to add some further documentation > > about it (a code comment somewhere?) but I don't know where would that > > be. > > It is documented in the "Database Physical Storage" part of the docs, > but no particular emphasis is laid on the 1-vs-0 convention. Maybe > a few more words there are worthwhile? To me it seems like we more need to emphasize it in the code comments, but I have no concrete proposal. I don't think this is an urgent problem that needs to consume a lot of cycles right now, but I thought it was worth mentioning for the archives and just to get the idea out there that maybe we could do better someday. (My first idea was to deadpan a proposal that we reverse the convention, but then I realized that trolling the list might not be my best strategy.) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
