Horton
Menu

Thread

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. amcheck: Remove unused IndexCheckableCallback typedef.

  2. amcheck: Move common routines into a separate module

  1. amcheck: Remove unused IndexCheckableCallback typedef

    Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> — 2025-07-04T07:50:26Z

    Hi,

Commit d70b17636dd introduced the IndexCheckableCallback typedef for
a callback function, but it appears to be unused.

 From the discussion in [1], it seems this typedef was originally used as
a function argument in early versions of the patch. However,
the argument was removed in v23, and the typedef was accidentally left behind.

The attached patch removes this unused typedef to clean up the dead code.
Thoughts?

Regards,

[1] https://postgr.es/m/45AC9B0A-2B45-40EE-B08F-BDCF5739D1E1@yandex-team.ru

-- 
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation

  2. Re: amcheck: Remove unused IndexCheckableCallback typedef

    Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru> — 2025-07-04T08:25:26Z

    
> On 4 Jul 2025, at 10:50, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> 
> From the discussion in [1], it seems this typedef was originally used as
> a function argument in early versions of the patch. However,
> the argument was removed in v23, and the typedef was accidentally left behind.

Yes, your analysis is correct. We could make common checking function and argument was not needed.

> 
> The attached patch removes this unused typedef to clean up the dead code.
> Thoughts?

Looks good to me. Thanks for fixing this!


Best regards, Andrey Borodin.

  3. Re: amcheck: Remove unused IndexCheckableCallback typedef

    Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> — 2025-07-04T14:29:35Z

    
On 2025/07/04 17:25, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 4 Jul 2025, at 10:50, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>>
>>  From the discussion in [1], it seems this typedef was originally used as
>> a function argument in early versions of the patch. However,
>> the argument was removed in v23, and the typedef was accidentally left behind.
> 
> Yes, your analysis is correct. We could make common checking function and argument was not needed.
> 
>>
>> The attached patch removes this unused typedef to clean up the dead code.
>> Thoughts?
> 
> Looks good to me. Thanks for fixing this!

Thanks for the review! I've pushed the patch.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation