On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:03 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I'm just going to remove the useless assertion for now. What you're
>>> proposing here may (or may not) be worth doing, bu
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:03 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I'm just going to remove the useless assertion for now. What you're
>> proposing here may (or may not) be worth doing, but it carries a
>> non-zero risk of breaking something somewhere
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On 8 May 2015 at 13:02, Michael Paquier wrote:
I think that we should redefine subxcnt as uint32 for consistency with
>>>
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 8 May 2015 at 13:02, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> I think that we should redefine subxcnt as uint32 for consistency with
>>> xcnt, and remove the two assertions that 924bcf4 has introdu
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 8 May 2015 at 13:02, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I think that we should redefine subxcnt as uint32 for consistency with
>> xcnt, and remove the two assertions that 924bcf4 has introduced. I
>> could get a patch quickly done FWIW.
>
> (uint32) +
On 8 May 2015 at 13:02, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 7 May 2015 at 21:40, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Coverity is complaining about the following assertion introduced in
> >> commit 924bcf4 (parallel stuff, Serialize
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 7 May 2015 at 21:40, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Coverity is complaining about the following assertion introduced in
>> commit 924bcf4 (parallel stuff, SerializeSnapshot@snapmgr.c):
>> + Assert(snapshot->xcnt >= 0);
>>
>
On 7 May 2015 at 21:40, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Coverity is complaining about the following assertion introduced in
> commit 924bcf4 (parallel stuff, SerializeSnapshot@snapmgr.c):
> + Assert(snapshot->xcnt >= 0);
>
> Now the thing is that this assertion does not make much sense
Hi all,
Coverity is complaining about the following assertion introduced in
commit 924bcf4 (parallel stuff, SerializeSnapshot@snapmgr.c):
+ Assert(snapshot->xcnt >= 0);
Now the thing is that this assertion does not make much sense, because
SnapshotData defines subxcnt as uint32 in snapshot.
