On 07/11/2012 05:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm also inclined to think that the while (stack) coding of the rest
of it is wrong, misleading, or both, on precisely the same grounds: if
that loop ever did fall out at the test, the function would have failed
to honor its contract. The only correct
On 07/13/2012 11:33 AM, Markus Wanner wrote:
As another minor improvement, it doesn't seem necessary to repeatedly
set the rootBlkno.
Sorry, my mail program delivered an older version of the patch, which
didn't reflect that change. Here's what I intended to send.
Regards
Markus Wanner
#
#
Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch writes:
On 07/13/2012 11:33 AM, Markus Wanner wrote:
As another minor improvement, it doesn't seem necessary to repeatedly
set the rootBlkno.
Sorry, my mail program delivered an older version of the patch, which
didn't reflect that change. Here's what I
Hackers,
I stumbled across an initialization of a BlockNumber with InvalidBuffer,
which seems strange to me, as the values for invalid of the two types
are different, see attached patch.
In case the 'stack' argument passed to that function is not NULL, the
variable in question gets overridden
Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch writes:
I stumbled across an initialization of a BlockNumber with InvalidBuffer,
which seems strange to me, as the values for invalid of the two types
are different, see attached patch.
That's certainly bogus ...
In case the 'stack' argument passed to that
