On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 2:01 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 4:35 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > + Assert((xcnt > 0) && (xcnt == rb->catchange_ntxns));
> >
> > (xcnt > 0) is obvious here (otherwise means dlist_foreach is broken..).
> > (xcnt == rb->catchange_ntxns) is not what should be checked here. The
> > assert just requires that catchange_txns and catchange_ntxns are
> > consistent so it should be checked just after dlist_empty.. I think.
> >
>
> If we want to check if catchange_txns and catchange_ntxns are
> consistent, should we check (xcnt == rb->catchange_ntxns) as well, no?
> This function requires the caller to use rb->catchange_ntxns as the
> length of the returned array. I think this assertion ensures that the
> actual length of the array is consistent with the length we
> pre-calculated.
>
Right, so, I think it is better to keep this assertion but remove
(xcnt > 0) part as pointed out by Horiguchi-San.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
