| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections |
| Date: | 2025-02-21 05:35:14 |
| Message-ID: | 2987320.1740116114@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 9:28 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> The patch curently uses a hardcoded 6 for the length of MAX_BACKENDS. Does
>> anybody have a good idea for how to either
>>
>> a) derive 6 from MAX_BACKENDS in a way that can be used in a C array size
This all seems quite over-the-top to me. Just allocate 10 characters,
which is certainly enough for the output of a %u format spec, and
call it good.
(Yeah, I know that's not as much fun, but ...)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-02-21 05:35:34 | Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-02-21 05:20:39 | Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections |