From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: fixing old_snapshot_threshold's time->xid mapping |
Date: | 2020-04-20 18:01:07 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZsiQ_6BLNN4LMVYV21GoaQmF=T3Qxjd=4EC_WkEL2b_Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 12:10 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I have started reviewing these patches. I think, the fixes looks right to me.
>
> + LWLockAcquire(OldSnapshotTimeMapLock, LW_SHARED);
> + mapping->head_offset = oldSnapshotControl->head_offset;
> + mapping->head_timestamp = oldSnapshotControl->head_timestamp;
> + mapping->count_used = oldSnapshotControl->count_used;
> + for (int i = 0; i < OLD_SNAPSHOT_TIME_MAP_ENTRIES; ++i)
> + mapping->xid_by_minute[i] = oldSnapshotControl->xid_by_minute[i];
> + LWLockRelease(OldSnapshotTimeMapLock);
>
> I think memcpy would be a better choice instead of looping it for all
> the entries, since we are doing this under a lock?
When I did it that way, it complained about "const" and I couldn't
immediately figure out how to fix it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-04-20 18:09:06 | Re: design for parallel backup |
Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2020-04-20 17:59:28 | new heapcheck contrib module |