Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Shawn Debnath <sdn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue
Date: 2019-04-04 21:53:53
Message-ID: CA+hUKGLO9njPo0J0UEjTQLgzmE_w37iK=WoZRj0zT+3R2S7Mig@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 2:03 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2019-Apr-04, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > I don't think it's project policy to put a single typedef into its own
> > header like that, and I'm not sure where else to put it.
>
> shrug. Looks fine to me. I suppose if we don't have it anywhere, it's
> just because we haven't needed that particular trick yet. Creating a
> file with a lone typedef seems better than using uint32 to me.

It was commit 9fac5fd7 that gave me that idea.

Ok, here is a patch that adds a one-typedef header and uses
SegmentIndex to replace all cases of BlockNumber and int holding a
segment number (where as an "index" or a "count").

--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Introduce-SegmentNumber-typedef-for-relation-segment.patch application/octet-stream 9.3 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2019-04-04 21:54:34 PostgreSQL Buildfarm Client Release 10
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-04-04 21:45:20 Re: COPY FREEZE and setting PD_ALL_VISIBLE/visibility map bits