From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing |
Date: | 2018-09-01 05:24:38 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.21.1809010716470.32764@lancre |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
>> Okay, for the memo replay_image_masked and master_image_masked
>> in xlog.c could make use of the new structure. SetWALSegSize in
>> pg_standby.c and WriteEmptyXLOG in pg_resetwal.c, and pg_upgrade's
>> file.c could also be patched.
>
> I intentionally didn't change replay_image_masked/master_image_masked
> to use statically-allocated buffers. Since, AFAICS, those aren't
> needed in most backend processes, they'd just be eating 16KB of
> per-process data space to no purpose.
>
> The others you mention could be changed, probably, but I didn't
> bother as they didn't seem performance-critical.
I'd go for having just one same approach everywhere, for code base
homogeneity.
>>> +typedef union PGAlignedBuffer
>
>> One complain I have is about the name of those structures. Perhaps
>> PGAlignedBlock and PGAlignedXlogBlock make more sense?
>
> Don't have a strong preference, anybody else have an opinion?
I like "Block" better, because it's more precise.
> (I also wondered whether to use "WAL" instead of "XLog" in that
> struct name, but it seems like we've mostly stuck with "xlog"
> in internal C names.)
Best to blend with the surrounding code in the header file?
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-09-01 05:28:37 | Re: file cloning in pg_upgrade and CREATE DATABASE |
Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2018-09-01 04:58:21 | Re: pg_verify_checksums failure with hash indexes |