At Sun, 29 Mar 2020 23:08:27 -0700, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote in > 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.
Agreed. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
