Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2020-Jul-09, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I think we should define InvalidXLogSegNo to be ~((uint64)0) and add a
>> macro to test for that.
> That's overkill really. I just used zero. Running
> contrib/test_decoding under valgrind, this now passes.
> I think I'd rather do away with the compare to zero, and initialize to
> something else in GetWALAvailability, though. What we're doing seems
> unclean and unclear.
Is zero really not a valid segment number?
regards, tom lane
