Re: pgsql: Document XLOG_INCLUDE_XID a little better - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: pgsql: Document XLOG_INCLUDE_XID a little better
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmoa-V9fKXj-gr24-D-v=sck4r5Re4by8knu004Fc9h4qug@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pgsql: Document XLOG_INCLUDE_XID a little better  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 6:46 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have written two patches, Approach1 is as you described using a
> static boolean and Approach2 as a local variable to XLogAssembleRecord
> as described by Amit, attached both of them for your reference.
> IMHO, either of these approaches looks cleaner.

I agree, and I don't have a strong preference between them. If I were
writing code like this from scratch, I would do what 0001 does. But
0002 is arguably more consistent with the existing style. It's kind of
hard to judge, at least for me, which is to be preferred.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Sergey Shinderuk
Date:
Subject: Bug in DefineRange() with multiranges
Next
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Print error when libpq-refs-stamp fails