Hi, On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 08:48:11PM +0100, Álvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2025-Nov-06, Bertrand Drouvot wrote: > > > I see, I would have introduced XLogRecPtrIsInvalid() on the back branches > > only > > if there is a need to (a bugfix that would make use of it). But yeah, I > > agree > > that would add extra "unnecessary" work, so done as you suggested in the > > attached. I checked that 0001 apply on the [14-18]_STABLE branches > > successfully. > > Okay, thanks, I have applied that one to all stable branches, except I > didn't add the judgemental comment about XLogRecPtrIsInvalid(). > > I also pushed 0002+0004+0005 together as one commit, so now we have > XLogRecPtrIsValid() everywhere.
Thanks! > I did a couple of minor transformations, where the new code would end > doing "!XLogRecPtrIsValid(x) ? A : B" it seems clearer to remove the > negation and invert the other two arguments in the ternary. We also had > this assertion, > > - Assert(XLogRecPtrIsInvalid(state->istartpoint) == (state->istarttli == > 0)); > > which was being transformed to have a negation. I chose to negate the > other side of the equality instead, that is, > > + Assert(XLogRecPtrIsValid(state->istartpoint) == (state->istarttli != 0)); > > which also seems clearer. Agree, will modify the .cocci scripts that way. > Now only 0003 remains ... I would change the complaining version to 21 > there, because why not? Now that XLogRecPtrIsValid() is available in back branches, I agree that we can be less conservative and not wait until v24. v21 looks like good timing to me. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
