|From:||Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>|
|To:||Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>|
|Cc:||pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Oleg Ivanov <o(dot)ivanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|Subject:||Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: generic WAL compression|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
I'm not really sure why this is still in Needs Review as a review was
posted and I don't see any follow-up. I've changed this to be Waiting
* Antonin Houska (ah(at)cybertec(dot)at) wrote:
> Oleg Ivanov <o(dot)ivanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> > In order to overcome that issue, I would like to propose the patch, which
> > provides possibility to use another approach of the WAL record
> > construction.
> After having spent several hours reviewing this patch I dare to send the
> following comments:
Thanks for the review Antonin!
> * writeToPtr() and readFromPtr() are applied to the existing code. I think
> this is a reason for a separate diff, to be applied before the actual patch.
I'm not really a fan of using these, for my 2c. I'm not sure how others
feel, but having these macros which change one of the arguments to the
macro (by advancing the pointer) doesn't result in a net improvement to
readability for me.
The other review comments also seem pretty reasonable to me.
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2018-01-22 21:56:07||Re: pgsql: Move handling of database properties from pg_dumpall into pg_dum|
|Previous Message||Tomas Vondra||2018-01-22 21:25:30||Re: [HACKERS] log_destination=file|