| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Accommodate startup process in a separate ProcState array slot instead of in MaxBackends slots. |
| Date: | 2022-03-25 19:49:59 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoap+LCpdv4avkcU3XPyLYFGNnju9XarwTeShzBztqyOHA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 6:26 AM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> FWIW, here's a patch just adding a comment on how the startup process
> can get a free procState array slot even when SInvalShmemSize hasn't
> accounted for it.
I don't think the positioning of this code comment is very good,
because it's commenting on 0 lines of code. Perhaps that problem could
be fixed by making it the second paragraph of the immediately
preceding comment instead of a separate block, but I think the right
place to comment on this sort of thing is actually in the code that
sizes the data structure - i.e. SInvalShmemSize. If someone looks at
that function and says "hey, this uses GetMaxBackends(), that's off by
one!" they are not ever going to find this comment explaining the
reasoning.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-03-25 19:58:02 | Re: SSL/TLS instead of SSL in docs |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2022-03-25 19:42:38 | Re: pg14 psql broke \d datname.nspname.relname |