| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: dshash_find_or_insert vs. OOM |
| Date: | 2026-03-18 17:46:14 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYc1PG27ySdjX+fv85-iXA-qNj-AybxQAE7kseKv+qdLQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 9:34 PM Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> When OOM happens, Assert((flags & DSHASH_INSERT_NO_OOM) != 0); makes sense. But for resize(), the assert is inside resize(), while for insert_into_bucket(), the assert is in the caller. That feels a bit inconsistent to me, and I think it hurts readability a little. A reader might wonder why there is no corresponding assert after resize() unless they go read the function body.
Adjusted.
> Making this a nested block does have the benefit of keeping dsa_flags close to where it is used. But from my impression, this style is still fairly uncommon in the codebase. I worry it may implicitly signal to other hackers that this is an acceptable pattern. So unless we intentionally want to encourage that style, I would lean toward avoiding it here.
Yeah, that was dumb. Fixed.
Thanks for the review; here's v2.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-dshash-Make-it-possible-to-suppress-out-of-memory.patch | application/octet-stream | 9.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2026-03-18 17:52:30 | Re: Add uuid_to_base32hex() and base32hex_to_uuid() built-in functions |
| Previous Message | Matheus Alcantara | 2026-03-18 17:42:35 | Re: Avoid resource leak (contrib/postgres_fdw/connection.c) |