| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: dsm_unpin_segment |
| Date: | 2016-08-22 14:04:24 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1J-9At74-66CxjYO56hMkLShhnmZ4N3DE5UOR-JV-VVsA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-08-22 14:25:09 | Re: improved DefElem list processing |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-08-22 13:49:23 | Re: Tracking wait event for latches |