| From: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Remove unused fields from BufferCacheNumaRec |
| Date: | 2025-11-23 04:27:08 |
| Message-ID: | C7FFA493-6CFD-49D1-89F6-D5FB13AF02D6@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Nov 21, 2025, at 19:34, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi hackers,
>
> While working on [1], I noticed that there are unused fields in BufferCacheNumaRec
> since ba2a3c2302f.
>
> Also, I noticed that a comment was not at the correct location in
> pg_buffercache_numa_pages().
>
> The attached takes care of both.
As long as compile passes, that proves the removal of the unused fields is safe. And by reading the code, I believe the movement of the comment is also correct.
Looks like you have done a little bit rewording on the comment:
1. "This loop stores into os_page_ptrs[]” is understandable, but feels a bit incomplete to me as non-English-speaking. I understand your intention is to make “stores” and “touches” to share “addresses”. But this is not a strong opinion comment, if Michael considers okay, I will be fine as well.
2. Instead of saying “if needed”, why don’t explicitly mention something like “on the first pass”.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sugamoto Shinya | 2025-11-23 04:32:38 | [PATCH] Add error hints for invalid COPY options |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-11-23 03:25:56 | Re: PRI?64 vs Visual Studio (2022) |