Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)
Date: 2021-06-12 19:27:16
Message-ID: 20210612192716.nb75rglpn2owjwoq@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2021-06-12 10:55:22 -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> With the recent changes at procarray.c, I take a look in.
> msvc compiler, has some warnings about signed vs unsigned.

> 1. Size_t is weird, because all types are int.

Not sure why I ended up using size_t here. There are cases where using a
natively sized integer can lead to better code being generated, so I'd
want to see some evaluation of the code generation effects.

> 2. Wouldn't it be better to initialize static variables?

No, explicit initialization needs additional space in the binary, and
static variables are always zero initialized.

> 3. There are some shadowing parameters.

Hm, yea, that's not great. Those are from

commit 0e141c0fbb211bdd23783afa731e3eef95c9ad7a
Author: Robert Haas <rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Date: 2015-08-06 11:52:51 -0400

Reduce ProcArrayLock contention by removing backends in batches.

Amit, Robert, I assume you don't mind changing this?

> 4. Possible loop beyond numProcs?

What are you referring to here?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Finnerty, Jim 2021-06-12 19:39:25 Re: Character expansion with ICU collations
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-06-12 19:15:11 Re: recovery test failures on hoverfly