Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: GetOldestXminExtend for ignoring arbitraryvacuum flags - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: GetOldestXminExtend for ignoring arbitraryvacuum flags
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmob8Jf7LTkbAY1wetM0YUBjGwAjEwG2=AGYksfHUnS19pg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: GetOldestXminExtend for ignoring arbitraryvacuum flags  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: GetOldestXminExtend for ignoring arbitraryvacuum flags  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote:
> On 2/14/17 3:13 AM, Seki, Eiji wrote:
>>   +extern TransactionId GetOldestXmin(Relation rel, uint8 ignoreFlags);
>
>
> My impression is that most other places that do this sort of thing just call
> the argument 'flags', so as not to "lock in" a single idea of what the flags
> are for. I can't readily think of another use for flags in GetOldestXmin,
> but ISTM it's better to just go with "flags" instead of "ignoreFlags".

I agree; also, many years ago a guy named Tom Lane told me that flags
argument should typically be declared as type "int".  I've followed
that advice ever since.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should we cacheline align PGXACT?
Next
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck