Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Shawn Debnath <sdn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue
Date: 2019-04-04 13:02:58
Message-ID: 20190404130258.GA7320@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-Apr-04, Thomas Munro wrote:

> I don't think it's project policy to put a single typedef into its own
> header like that, and I'm not sure where else to put it.

shrug. Looks fine to me. I suppose if we don't have it anywhere, it's
just because we haven't needed that particular trick yet. Creating a
file with a lone typedef seems better than using uint32 to me.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Julien Rouhaud 2019-04-04 13:06:47 Re: Re: reloption to prevent VACUUM from truncating empty pages at the end of relation
Previous Message Julien Rouhaud 2019-04-04 12:53:55 Re: Checksum errors in pg_stat_database