On 2020-Jul-11, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 2020-Jul-09, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> I think we should define InvalidXLogSegNo to be ~((uint64)0) and add a
> >> macro to test for that.
>
> > That's overkill really. I just used zero. Running
> > contrib/test_decoding under valgrind, this now passes.
>
> > I think I'd rather do away with the compare to zero, and initialize to
> > something else in GetWALAvailability, though. What we're doing seems
> > unclean and unclear.
>
> Is zero really not a valid segment number?
No, but you cannot retreat from that ...
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services