On 2020-Jul-11, Tom Lane wrote: > 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?
No, but you cannot retreat from that ... -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
