From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: _mdfd_getseg can be expensive |
Date: | 2014-11-01 16:57:40 |
Message-ID: | 5725.1414861060@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-10-31 18:48:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> While the basic idea is sound, this particular implementation seems
>> pretty bizarre. What's with the "md_seg_no" stuff, and why is that
>> array typed size_t?
> It stores the length of the array of _MdfdVec entries.
Oh. "seg_no" seems like not a very good choice of name then.
Perhaps "md_seg_count" or something like that would be more intelligible.
And personally I'd have made it an int, because we are certainly not doing
segment-number arithmetic in anything wider than int anywhere else.
Introducing size_t into the mix won't do anything except create a risk of
signed-vs-unsigned logic bugs.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-11-01 17:18:03 | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-11-01 16:13:03 | Re: Pipelining executions to postgresql server |