Re: [PATCH] Add loongarch native checksum implementation.

From: YANG Xudong <yangxudong(at)ymatrix(dot)cn>
To: John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, wengyanqing(at)ymatrix(dot)cn, wanghao(at)ymatrix(dot)cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add loongarch native checksum implementation.
Date: 2023-08-08 07:22:34
Message-ID: 027dd4bc-77ff-9e6d-6cfe-f07cd995889f@ymatrix.cn
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 2023/8/8 14:38, John Naylor wrote:
>
> It seems that platforms capable of running Postgres
> only support 64 bit.

I think so.

> > So I guess using aligned memory access is necessary and I have updated
> > the comment in the code.
>
> Okay, so it's not "necessary" in the sense that it's illegal, so I'm
> thinking we can just re-use the Arm comment language, as in 0002.

Yes. I think it is similar to Arm.

> v4 0001 is the same as v3, but with a draft commit message. I will
> squash and commit this week, unless there is additional feedback.

Looks good to me. Thanks for the additional patch.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2023-08-08 07:29:49 Re: Incorrect handling of OOM in WAL replay leading to data loss
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2023-08-08 07:20:03 Re: cpluspluscheck vs ICU