From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c) |
Date: | 2021-06-12 19:27:16 |
Message-ID: | 20210612192716.nb75rglpn2owjwoq@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-06-12 10:55:22 -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> With the recent changes at procarray.c, I take a look in.
> msvc compiler, has some warnings about signed vs unsigned.
> 1. Size_t is weird, because all types are int.
Not sure why I ended up using size_t here. There are cases where using a
natively sized integer can lead to better code being generated, so I'd
want to see some evaluation of the code generation effects.
> 2. Wouldn't it be better to initialize static variables?
No, explicit initialization needs additional space in the binary, and
static variables are always zero initialized.
> 3. There are some shadowing parameters.
Hm, yea, that's not great. Those are from
commit 0e141c0fbb211bdd23783afa731e3eef95c9ad7a
Author: Robert Haas <rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Date: 2015-08-06 11:52:51 -0400
Reduce ProcArrayLock contention by removing backends in batches.
Amit, Robert, I assume you don't mind changing this?
> 4. Possible loop beyond numProcs?
What are you referring to here?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Finnerty, Jim | 2021-06-12 19:39:25 | Re: Character expansion with ICU collations |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-12 19:15:11 | Re: recovery test failures on hoverfly |