Re: Null commitTS bug - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Null commitTS bug
Date
Msg-id 3917423.1642392085@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Null commitTS bug  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 11:17:24AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>> I found some confusing lines around but they need not a fix
>> considering back-patching conflict?
>>> i += j - i + 1;

> I am not sure.  Do you have anything specific in mind?  Perhaps
> something that would help in making the code logic easier to follow?

Isn't that a very bad way to write "i = j + 1"?

I agree with Horiguchi-san that

    for (i = 0, headxid = xid;;)

is not great style either.  A for-loop ought to be used to control the
number of iterations, not as a confusing variable initialization.
I think more idiomatic would be

    headxid = xid;
    i = 0;
    for (;;)

which makes it clear that this is not where the loop control is.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: Add sub-transaction overflow status in pg_stat_activity
Next
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side