From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Deduplicate code updating ControleFile's DBState. |
Date: | 2021-11-28 04:32:53 |
Message-ID: | YaMGdQYgFtUh5NKi@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 07:53:13AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Isn't it better if we update the ControlFile->time at the end of the
> update_controlfile, after file write/sync?
I don't quite understand your point here. We want to update the
control file's timestamp when it is written, before calculating its
CRC.
> Why do we even need UpdateControlFile which just calls another
> function? It may be there for usability and readability, but can't the
> pg backend code just call update_controlfile(DataDir, ControlFile,
> true); directly so that a function call cost can be avoided?
> Otherwise, why can't we make UpdateControlFile an inline function? I'm
> not sure if any of the compilers will ever optimize by inlining it
> without the "inline" keyword.
I would leave it as-is as UpdateControlFile() is a public API old
enough to vote (a70e74b0). Anyway, that's a useful wrapper for the
backend.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-11-28 04:34:45 | Re: SSL Tests for sslinfo extension |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-11-28 04:19:55 | Re: pg_waldump stucks with options --follow or -f and --stats or -z |