Re: [HACKERS] Small code improvement for btree

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Interesting.  We learned elsewhere that it's better to integrate the
> "!= 0" test as part of the macro definition; so a
> better formulation of this patch would be to change the
> P_INCOMPLETE_SPLIT macro and omit the comparison in the Assert.  (See
> commit 594e61a1de03 for an example).
>
>
>> -               LockBuffer(hbuffer, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE);
>> +               LockBuffer(hbuffer, BT_READ);

+1.

One Linus Torvalds rant that I actually agreed with was a rant against
the use of bool as a type in C code. It's fine, as long as you never
forget that it's actually just another integer.

> I think BT_READ and BT_WRITE are useless, and I'd rather get rid of
> them ...

Fair enough, but we should either use them consistently or not at all.
I'm not especially concerned about which, as long as it's one of those
two.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan