From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Strange coding in _mdfd_openseg() |
Date: | 2019-04-03 20:24:49 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKGJHX9q43g=aBSaQwbNLhLpqiGWHbzgPz8bt5ihWzAv-=g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 5:34 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> I may be missing something, but it seems possible that
> _mdfd_getseg calls it with segno > opensegs.
>
> | for (nextsegno = reln->md_num_open_segs[forknum];
Here nextsegno starts out equal to opensegs.
> | nextsegno <= targetseg; nextsegno++)
Here we add one to nextsegno...
> | ...
> | v = _mdfd_openseg(reln, forknum, nextsegno, flags);
... after adding one to opensegs. So they're always equal. This fits
a general programming pattern when appending to an array, the next
element's index is the same as the number of elements. But I claim
the coding is weird, because _mdfd_openseg's *looks* like it can
handle opening segments in any order, except that the author
accidentally wrote "<=" instead of ">=". In fact it can't open them
in any order, because we don't support "holes" in the array. So I
think it should really be "==", and it should be an assertion, not a
condition.
--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2019-04-03 20:42:14 | Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb |
Previous Message | legrand legrand | 2019-04-03 20:22:24 | Re: minimizing pg_stat_statements performance overhead |