From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: dsm_unpin_segment |
Date: | 2016-08-23 18:53:42 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaWXYJ9e9NqgMUVzdOERJnWuS92apuR56VjUhxbXhr+Dw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> + int control_slot = -1;
>>> ...
>>> + if (control_slot == -1)
>>> + elog(ERROR, "cannot unpin unknown segment handle");
>>>
>>> Isn't it better to use INVALID_CONTROL_SLOT for control_slot and use
>>> datatype as uint32 (same is used for dsm_segment->control_slot and
>>> nitems)?
>>
>> Yes, it is better. New version attached.
>>
>
> This version of patch looks good to me. I have marked it as Ready For
> Committer.
Committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-08-23 18:55:16 | Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-08-23 18:49:57 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty() |