Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I do not think they are wrong, but aren't the latter two somewhat >> redundant? "num" is p->num_objects, and we call (first+1)th element >> only after we see (first < num - 1), i.e. first+1 < num, and the >> access to (first-1)th is done only when first > 0. The first one, >> i.e. when first points at where we _would_ find it if it existed, >> can access "first" that could be p->num_objects, so the change there >> makes sense, though. > > Yes. But I'd rather keep the blocks consistent and use the return > value of nth_packed_object_oid() when possible. Sure, I do not think anybody minds; I just wanted a sanity check. Thansk.
