On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 at 10:31, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> for non-Assert builds, ItemPointerGetOffsetNumberNoCheck() and
> ItemPointerGetOffsetNumber() are the same, so I don't see the point to
> making this change. Frankly, I don't know why we even have two
> functions for this. I am guessing ItemPo
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 3:59 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Even in an assert-enabled build, wouldn't you expect the compiler to
> optimize away the second assertion as unreachable code?
I think that it probably would, even at -O0 (GCC doesn't really allow
you to opt out of all optimizations). I did think
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> The proposal doesn't seem like an improvement. Technically the
> assertion cannot possibly fail here because the earlier assertion
> would always fail instead, so strictly speaking it is redundant -- at
> least right now. That is true. But it seems much more important to
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 3:31 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 08:04:00PM +0800, Junwang Zhao wrote:
> for non-Assert builds, ItemPointerGetOffsetNumberNoCheck() and
> ItemPointerGetOffsetNumber() are the same, so I don't see the point to
> making this change. Frankly, I don't kno
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 08:04:00PM +0800, Junwang Zhao wrote:
> In function ItemPointerEquals, the ItemPointerGetBlockNumber
> already checked the ItemPointer if valid, there is no need
> to check it again in ItemPointerGetOffset, so use
> ItemPointerGetOffsetNumberNoCheck instead.
>
> Signed-off-
got it, thanks for the explanation.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:34 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Junwang Zhao writes:
> > In function ItemPointerEquals, the ItemPointerGetBlockNumber
> > already checked the ItemPointer if valid, there is no need
> > to check it again in ItemPointerGetOffset, so use
> >
Junwang Zhao writes:
> In function ItemPointerEquals, the ItemPointerGetBlockNumber
> already checked the ItemPointer if valid, there is no need
> to check it again in ItemPointerGetOffset, so use
> ItemPointerGetOffsetNumberNoCheck instead.
I do not think this change is worth making. The point
In function ItemPointerEquals, the ItemPointerGetBlockNumber
already checked the ItemPointer if valid, there is no need
to check it again in ItemPointerGetOffset, so use
ItemPointerGetOffsetNumberNoCheck instead.
--
Regards
Junwang Zhao
v1-0001-remove-redundant-check-of-item-pointer.patch
Descr
In function ItemPointerEquals, the ItemPointerGetBlockNumber
already checked the ItemPointer if valid, there is no need
to check it again in ItemPointerGetOffset, so use
ItemPointerGetOffsetNumberNoCheck instead.
Signed-off-by: Junwang Zhao
---
src/backend/storage/page/itemptr.c | 4 ++--
1 file
