Message-ID: <8b686764-7ac1-74c3-70f9-b64685a2535f@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 08:00:00 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.4.2
Subject: Re: trying again to get incremental backup
Content-Language: en-US
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Jakub Wartak <jakub.wartak@enterprisedb.com>,
 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Andres Freund
 <andres@anarazel.de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
 Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: 
 <CA+TgmoYiPn7GE_GFvGf+150XOt-Pkdm8h4rzy42jYCRrceUWhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+Tgmob4VFT6CuVaxwO0JjLrmCoHF+NNm_f1LsCeSi5i82MeSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKZiRmy73EKi3i5mdtcjn6r6WWQfKuri3HSQ+Pmdu_7g5Ef5kA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYUhrgcNin=qrY+J+S-f6kctf9DaUKoaD-e3cww_ox9vg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKZiRmygUFo5Fa4y9cUwuhZNEJpP6Ng8AwbQDkYGuRAmK23zvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmobPUXTfGC-2BTGAu5tOQQV_4x0HdOw_6o__rC0+X+1Yzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKZiRmwd3KTNMQhm9Bv4oR_1uMehXroO6kGyJQkiw9DfM8cMwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoaGeZ=vWDYvWtPY-sP+6594HqLScvPMSSunyuYZVSWMpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKZiRmwTF8mj24f92mh+fiGiceO+myX6CnuYo6u2EJ+ok+Hy4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+Tgmoar8+V1ycDPgT_-d+1pG_9uRn=qSPty2Y2PgNQBTqRsfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <061cccf7-0cac-804f-4c2a-9d6da8e3848b@gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmobdU8Xa3bsU7F==U0vAS1KfkgvAnskjnSqagUB2gGFrcw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f08f7c60-1ad3-0b57-d580-54b11f07cddf@gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoZetdarddiiw6CFW5UPUXuRMqaGRHRSiqRiKhmaqgE==Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoZetdarddiiw6CFW5UPUXuRMqaGRHRSiqRiKhmaqgE==Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/8b686764-7ac1-74c3-70f9-b64685a2535f%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

21.12.2023 23:43, Robert Haas wrote:
>> There are also two deadcode.DeadStores complaints from clang. First one is
>> about:
>>           /*
>>            * Align the wait time to prevent drift. This doesn't really matter,
>>            * but we'd like the warnings about how long we've been waiting to say
>>            * 10 seconds, 20 seconds, 30 seconds, 40 seconds ... without ever
>>            * drifting to something that is not a multiple of ten.
>>            */
>>           timeout_in_ms -=
>>               TimestampDifferenceMilliseconds(current_time, initial_time) %
>>               timeout_in_ms;
>> It looks like this timeout is really not used.
> Oops. It should be. See attached.

My quick experiment shows that that TimestampDifferenceMilliseconds call
always returns zero, due to it's arguments swapped.

The other changes look good to me.

Thank you!

Best regards,
Alexander