Re: [PATCH] Refactor: Extract XLogRecord info - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From wenhui qiu
Subject Re: [PATCH] Refactor: Extract XLogRecord info
Date
Msg-id CAGjGUA+48XRJqWr9yJ1oT4t=3=sdBvwqXQTqO-Cjn19uNg5eEw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Refactor: Extract XLogRecord info  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Refactor: Extract XLogRecord info
List pgsql-hackers
HI 
> FWIW, I'm not sure what's the benefit of the proposal which comes down
> to the removal of a bitwise NOT, except more code conflicts with back
> branches.
Agree 

On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 3:37 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 10:54:43PM -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> The refactoring LGTM but do we really need two patches? IMHO you can just
> merge everything into a single patch.

FWIW, I'm not sure what's the benefit of the proposal which comes down
to the removal of a bitwise NOT, except more code conflicts with back
branches.
--
Michael

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Refactor: Extract XLogRecord info
Next
From: Peter Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: [WIP]Vertical Clustered Index (columnar store extension) - take2