From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Strange path from pgarch_readyXlog() |
Date: | 2021-12-29 22:36:45 |
Message-ID: | 0678CBBA-8209-41E9-9A53-ACE63D71CE10@amazon.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/29/21, 1:04 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> writes:
>> I bet this was a simple mistake in beb4e9b.
>
>> -static char arch_filenames[NUM_FILES_PER_DIRECTORY_SCAN][MAX_XFN_CHARS];
>> +static char arch_filenames[NUM_FILES_PER_DIRECTORY_SCAN][MAX_XFN_CHARS + 1];
>
> Hm, yeah, that looks like a pretty obvious bug.
>
> While we're here, I wonder if we ought to get rid of the static-ness of
> these arrays. I realize that they're only eating a few kB, but they're
> doing so in every postgres process, when they'll only be used in the
> archiver.
This crossed my mind, too. I also think one of the arrays can be
eliminated in favor of just using the heap (after rebuilding with a
reversed comparator). Here is a minimally-tested patch that
demonstrates what I'm thinking.
Nathan
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
improve-beb4e9b.patch | application/octet-stream | 6.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM | 2021-12-29 22:47:59 | Re: Logging replication state changes |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2021-12-29 22:14:09 | Re: Adding CI to our tree |