| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PING] [PATCH v2] parallel pg_restore: avoid disk seeks when jumping short distance forward |
| Date: | 2025-10-20 21:29:22 |
| Message-ID: | 376918.1760995762@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> + /* Dump buffer if full */
> + if (nonecs->bufdata >= nonecs->buflen)
> Shouldn't this be equality check instead:
> if (nonecs->bufdata == nonecs->buflen)
Old defensive-programming habit. The invariant we want to establish
is that there's some space available, ie
nonecs->bufdata < nonecs->buflen
and if we just test for equality then we haven't proven that.
Agreed that bufdata shouldn't ever be greater than buflen, but if
it somehow is, an equality test here would contribute to making
things worse (writing ever further past the buffer) not better.
> And possibly also assert(nonecs->bufdata <= nonecs->buflen) ?
Maybe, but that code is simple enough that I didn't see a big
need for an assertion check.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mihail Nikalayeu | 2025-10-20 21:30:43 | Re: Fix race condition in SSI when reading PredXact->SxactGlobalXmin |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2025-10-20 21:22:29 | Re: abi-compliance-check failure due to recent changes to pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats() |