Re: Yet another small patch - reorderbuffer.c:1099

On 2016-04-05 11:38:27 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> IMO the code is wrong.

I'm a bit confused how an intentionally duplicated block makes code
wrong...

But whatever, I found it to be clerarer that way, but apparently I'm alone.


> The current arrangement looks bizantine to me, for no reason.  If we
> think that one of the two branches might do something additional to the
> list deletion, surely that will be in a separate stanza with its own
> comment; and if we ever want to remove the list deletion from one of the
> two cases (something that strikes me as unlikely) then we will need to
> fix the comment, too.

You realize it's two different lists they're deleted in the different
branches?

Greetings,

Andres Freund