The current implementations of __wt_row_modify and __wt_col_modify include an optional additional argument bool restore in diagnostic mode.

Based on a quick skim of the code there is no additional overhead for callers to know whether restore should be true or false, so it would be better to keep the HAVE_DIAGNOSTIC check inside the implementation of the two functions, rather than forcing callers to be aware of it.

Doing so will probably require the use of WT_UNUSED(restore); to avoid a compiler warning in non-diagnostic builds.

The new function definitions would become:

int
__wt_col_modify(WT_CURSOR_BTREE *cbt, uint64_t recno, const WT_ITEM *value, WT_UPDATE *upd_arg, u_int modify_type, bool exclusive, bool restore)

int
__wt_row_modify(WT_CURSOR_BTREE *cbt, const WT_ITEM *key, const WT_ITEM *value, WT_UPDATE *upd_arg, u_int modify_type, bool exclusive, bool restore)

And all callers can have the duplicated calls deduplicated, and start always passing in the restore parameter.