Em sex., 2 de jul. de 2021 às 07:09, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> escreveu:
> On 16.06.21 10:48, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 15.06.21 10:17, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > >> The definitions are not ((type) -1) but ((type) 0xFFFFFFFF) so > >> actually they might be different if we forget to widen the constant > >> when widening the types. Regarding to the compiler behavior, I think > >> we are assuming C99[1] and C99 defines that -1 is converted to > >> Uxxx_MAX. (6.3.1.3 Singed and unsigned integers) > >> > >> I'm +0.2 on it. It might be worthwhile as a matter of style. > > > > I think since we have the constants we should use them. > > I have pushed the InvalidBucket changes. > Nice. Thanks. > The use of InvalidBlockNumber with vac_update_relstats() looks a bit > fishy to me. We are using in the same call 0 as the default for > num_all_visible_pages, and we generally elsewhere also use 0 as the > starting value for relpages, so it's not clear to me why it should be -1 > or InvalidBlockNumber here. It seems to me that the only use in vac_update_relstats is to mark relpages as invalid (dirty = true). > I'd rather leave it "slightly wrong" for > now so it can be checked again. > Ideally InvalidBlockNumber should be 0. Maybe in the long run this will be fixed. regards, Ranier Vilela
