Message-ID: <948fd11c-cd13-4b29-98e3-0ca163537d42@oss.nttdata.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 00:23:15 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Refactor GetLockStatusData() by skipping unused backends and
 groups
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
References: <a0a00c44-31e9-4c67-9846-fb9636213ac9@oss.nttdata.com>
 <ZxYDgginZZGFPxqp@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <5a0f78d1-0f56-439b-b4d3-2bae9d262c6c@oss.nttdata.com>
 <Zxms9xnKd8SKOgVx@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
In-Reply-To: <Zxms9xnKd8SKOgVx@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/948fd11c-cd13-4b29-98e3-0ca163537d42%40oss.nttdata.com>
Precedence: bulk


On 2024/10/24 11:12, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
>> So, probably
>> we can consider that this check is already in place. If it’s still worth adding,
>> perhaps placing it inside the FAST_PATH_SLOT() macro could be an option...
>> Or current assertion check is enough? Thought?
> 
> Given that it's already done in FAST_PATH_GET_BITS(), I think that's fine as it
> is and v2 LGTM.

Thanks for the review! Pushed.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION