Re: _mdfd_getseg can be expensive

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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