| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: space reserved for WAL record does not match what was written: panic on windows |
| Date: | 2013-10-10 12:59:47 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoadkNjMVPKwiwvNx3hF8sFe9mOXq9xKZirODz8fPdmYiw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Do you have a better alternative? Making the computation unconditionally
> 64bit will have a runtime overhead and adding a StaticAssert in the
> existing macro doesn't work because we use it in array sizes where gcc
> balks.
> We could try using inline functions, but that's not going to be pretty
> either.
>
> I don't really see that many further usecases that will align 64bit
> values on 32bit platforms, so I think we're ok for now.
I'd be inclined to make the computation unconditionally 64-bit. I
doubt the speed penalty is enough to worry about, and I think we're
going to have more and more cases where optimizing for 32-bit
platforms is just not the right decision.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-10-10 13:15:28 | Re: Patch: FORCE_NULL option for copy COPY in CSV mode |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-10-10 12:33:08 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-10 13:23:30 | Re: space reserved for WAL record does not match what was written: panic on windows |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-10-09 18:04:18 | Re: Is there any way we can change the Majordomo moderation message? |