Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

From: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>
To: Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)
Date: 2021-07-15 11:38:32
Message-ID: CAJ7c6TPmWDDEC5HOaGCegUQU60-3ddUassEXWzEANN=riQSuDg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi hackers,

>> Patch attached.
> Added to next CF (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/33/3169/)

The proposed code casts `const` variables to non-`const`. I'm surprised
MSVC misses it. Also, there were some issues with the code formatting. The
corrected patch is attached.

The patch is listed under the "Performance" topic on CF. However, I can't
verify any changes in the performance because there were no benchmarks
attached that I could reproduce. By looking at the code and the first
message in the thread, I assume this is in fact a refactoring.

Personally I don't believe that changes like:

- for (int i = 0; i < nxids; i++)
+ int i;
+ for (i = 0; i < nxids; i++)

.. or:

- for (int index = myoff; index < arrayP->numProcs; index++)
+ numProcs = arrayP->numProcs;
+ for (index = myoff; index < numProcs; index++)

... are of any value, but other changes may be. I choose to keep the patch
as-is except for the named defects and let the committer decide which
changes, if any, are worth committing.

I'm updating the status to "Ready for Committer".

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

Attachment Content-Type Size
v3-0001-procarray-refactoring.patch application/octet-stream 26.2 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josef Šimánek 2021-07-15 11:40:31 Re: Git revision in tarballs
Previous Message vignesh C 2021-07-15 11:37:56 Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs