Re: Remove unused fields in ReorderBufferTupleBuf

From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Remove unused fields in ReorderBufferTupleBuf
Date: 2024-01-26 07:04:47
Message-ID: CAD21AoD1ueUe8O+bi4v8NNy2f4BKJvJAWa4vA4kbgQi28ib8hg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 10:17 PM Aleksander Alekseev
<aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > > Here is the corrected patch.
> >
> > Thank you for updating the patch! I have some comments:
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> > - tuple = (ReorderBufferTupleBuf *)
> > + tuple = (HeapTuple)
> > MemoryContextAlloc(rb->tup_context,
> > -
> > sizeof(ReorderBufferTupleBuf) +
> > + HEAPTUPLESIZE +
> > MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF +
> > alloc_len);
> > - tuple->alloc_tuple_size = alloc_len;
> > - tuple->tuple.t_data = ReorderBufferTupleBufData(tuple);
> > + tuple->t_data = (HeapTupleHeader)((char *)tuple + HEAPTUPLESIZE);
> >
> > Why do we need to add MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF? since HEAPTUPLESIZE is the
> > MAXALIGN'd size, it seems we don't need it. heap_form_tuple() does a
> > similar thing but it doesn't add it.
>
> Indeed. I gave it a try and nothing crashed, so it appears that
> MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF is not needed.
>
> > ---
> > xl_parameter_change *xlrec =
> > - (xl_parameter_change *)
> > XLogRecGetData(buf->record);
> > + (xl_parameter_change *)
> > XLogRecGetData(buf->record);
> >
> > Unnecessary change.
>
> That's pgindent. Fixed.
>
> > ---
> > -/*
> > - * Free a ReorderBufferTupleBuf.
> > - */
> > -void
> > -ReorderBufferReturnTupleBuf(ReorderBuffer *rb, ReorderBufferTupleBuf *tuple)
> > -{
> > - pfree(tuple);
> > -}
> > -
> >
> > Why does ReorderBufferReturnTupleBuf need to be moved from
> > reorderbuffer.c to reorderbuffer.h? It seems not related to this
> > refactoring patch so I think we should do it in a separate patch if we
> > really want it. I'm not sure it's necessary, though.
>
> OK, fixed.

Thank you for updating the patch. It looks good to me. I'm going to
push it next week, barring any objections.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Guo 2024-01-26 07:42:33 Apply the "LIMIT 1" optimization to partial DISTINCT
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2024-01-26 07:00:57 Re: Small fix on COPY ON_ERROR document