From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: A design for amcheck heapam verification |
Date: | 2017-09-29 17:54:02 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WznDZ6Sz6rhXZifjaB-3JjCHhpU07=oA4vkYJFd4==+Svg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> FWIW I think if I were attacking that problem the first thing I'd
> probably try would be getting rid of that internal pointer
> filter->bitset in favour of a FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER and then making
> the interface look something like this:
>
> extern size_t bloom_estimate(int64 total elems, int work_mem);
> extern void bloom_init(bloom_filter *filter, int64 total_elems, int work_mem);
>
> Something that allocates new memory as the patch's bloom_init()
> function does I'd tend to call 'make' or 'create' or 'new' or
> something, rather than 'init'.
I tend to agree. I'll adopt that style in the next version. I just
didn't want the caller to have to manage the memory themselves.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-09-29 17:57:58 | Re: A design for amcheck heapam verification |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-09-29 17:50:46 | Re: psql \d sequence display |