On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 02:56:11PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > At Sun, 29 Mar 2020 21:41:01 -0700, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote in > > Since pendingSyncHash is always NULL under XLogIsNeeded(), I also removed > > some > > XLogIsNeeded() tests that immediately preceded !pendingSyncHash tests. > > Sounds reasonable. In AddPendingSync, don't we put > Assert(!XLogIsNeeded()) instead of "Assert(pendingSyncHash == NULL)"? > The former guarantees the relationship between XLogIsNeeded() and > pendingSyncHash, and the existing latter assertion looks redundant as > it is placed just after "if (pendingSyncHash)".
The "Assert(pendingSyncHash == NULL)" is indeed useless; I will remove it. I am not inclined to replace it with Assert(!XLogIsNeeded()). This static function is not likely to get more callers, so the chance of accidentally calling it under XLogIsNeeded() is too low.
