Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 15:27:48 -0500
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Dagfinn Ilmari =?iso-8859-1?Q?Manns=E5ker?= <ilmari@ilmari.org>,
	Dipesh Pandit <dipesh.pandit@gmail.com>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Jeevan Ladhe <jeevanladhe.os@gmail.com>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
	"Shinoda, Noriyoshi (PN Japan FSIP)" <noriyoshi.shinoda@hpe.com>,
	Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@toroid.org>,
	Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>,
	Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan.ladhe@enterprisedb.com>,
	Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
	tushar <tushar.ahuja@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: Re: refactoring basebackup.c (zstd workers)
Message-ID: <20220330202748.GJ28503@telsasoft.com>
References: 
 <CA+Tgmobummc+reyzZJwnua7KXPC9sromDqYx1uoZ49mxq=LRfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <384291.1648403267@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoZ1DbW_nKeVteVvYt0WvZDhm77_qdb-TErjctW+h5_3Jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220328205329.GT28503@telsasoft.com>
 <CA+TgmoYw=UFomz2f8Uq0LtUmvcReRFqKb19YwO2O0Wv0Azz_ng@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220329000727.GV28503@telsasoft.com>
 <1054320.1648512714@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+Tgmob-ojwztsfn7uV87q4M8dXOtUgiTcH5=Tpu7UqobFK+8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmobU2eO0dOEDNREj0ZNU113kkhv+Phixx8tJ9+2CKOJWYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <284747.1648671287@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <284747.1648671287@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220330202748.GJ28503%40telsasoft.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 04:14:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> >> Maybe if I just put that last sentence into the comment it's clear enough?
> 
> > Done that way, since I thought it was better to fix the bug than wait
> > for more feedback on the wording. We can still adjust the wording, or
> > the coding, if it's not clear enough.
> 
> FWIW, I thought that explanation was fine, but I was deferring to
> Justin who was the one who thought things were unclear.

I still think it's unnecessarily confusing to nest "if" and "?:" conditionals
in one statement, instead of 2 or 3 separate "if"s, or "||"s.
But it's also not worth fussing over any more.