Ah, my stupid. At Wed, 13 Nov 2019 16:34:49 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote in > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:27:16AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > It seems to me it'd be better to just remove the "get a more recent > > flush pointer" block - it doesn't seem to currently surve a meaningful > > purpose. > > +1. That was actually my suggestion upthread :)
Actually it is useless as it is. But the code still seems to me an incomplete fast path (that lacks immediate return after it) for the case where just one call to GetFlushRecPtr advances RecentFlushPtr is enough. However, I'm not confident taht removing the (intended) fast path impacts perforance significantly. So I don't object to remove it. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
