Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Thread: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Remove unused argument in btree_xlog_split

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Remove unused argument in btree_xlog_split

From
Aleksander Alekseev
Date:
Hi Robert,

> Hmm.  I don't see anything wrong with that, particularly, but it seems
> we also don't need the distinction between XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_L and
> XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_L_ROOT or likewise between XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_R and
> XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_R_ROOT -- in which case I think this patch should go
> a little further and do all of that together.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this patch. Here is a new
version.

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
Attachment

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Remove unused argument in btree_xlog_split

From
Robert Haas
Date:
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Aleksander Alekseev
<a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
>> Hmm.  I don't see anything wrong with that, particularly, but it seems
>> we also don't need the distinction between XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_L and
>> XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_L_ROOT or likewise between XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_R and
>> XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_R_ROOT -- in which case I think this patch should go
>> a little further and do all of that together.
>
> Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this patch. Here is a new
> version.

Thanks.  Please add this to the next CommitFest, as there seems to be
no urgency (and some risk) in committing it right before feature
freeze.

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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Remove unused argument in btree_xlog_split

From
Aleksander Alekseev
Date:
Hi Robert,

> Thanks.  Please add this to the next CommitFest, as there seems to be
> no urgency (and some risk) in committing it right before feature
> freeze.

Sure. Already done [1].

[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1097/

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Remove unused argument in btree_xlog_split

From
Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
On 04/06/2017 03:21 PM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> 
>> Hmm.  I don't see anything wrong with that, particularly, but it seems
>> we also don't need the distinction between XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_L and
>> XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_L_ROOT or likewise between XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_R and
>> XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_R_ROOT -- in which case I think this patch should go
>> a little further and do all of that together.
> 
> Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this patch. Here is a new
> version.

Committed, thanks.

- Heikki