Re: 8.3.0 Core with concurrent vacuum fulls

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Gavin M(dot) Roy" <gmr(at)myyearbook(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 8.3.0 Core with concurrent vacuum fulls
Date: 2008-03-07 13:07:24
Message-ID: 11440.1204895244@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The WIP patch looks good to me. I haven't yet tested it (will wait for the
> final version). The following pointer arithmetic caught my eye though.
> ! nunused = (end - nowunused);
> Shouldn't we typecast them to (char *) first ?

No ... we want the number of OffsetNumbers, not the number of bytes.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2008-03-07 14:18:55 Re: shared_buffers and shmmax what are the max recommended values?
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2008-03-07 13:07:20 Re: Nasty bug in heap_page_prune