On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 06:47:57PM -0800, Mark Dilger wrote: > There is something unusual about comparing a XLogSegNo variable in > this way, but it seems to go back to 2014 when the replication slots > were introduced in commit 858ec11858a914d4c380971985709b6d6b7dd6fc, > and XLogSegNo was unsigned then, too. Depending on how you look at > it, this could be a thinko, or it could be defensive programming > against future changes to the XLogSegNo typedef. I’m betting it was > defensive programming, given the context. As such, I don’t think it > would be appropriate to remove this defense in your patch.
Yeah. To e honest, I am not actually sure if it is worth bothering about any of those three places. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
