Re: xl_heap_header alignment?

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: xl_heap_header alignment?
Date: 2020-08-22 03:07:34
Message-ID: CAKFQuwYHiojHTNmeoq57JLqCigdBLKabE+9JFg4w3X0jLCdRxQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:41 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 06:58:33AM +0200, Antonin Houska wrote:
> > Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't particularly want to remove the field, but we ought to
> > > change or remove the comment.
> >
> > I'm not concerned about the existence of the field as well. The comment
> just
> > made me worried that I might be missing some fundamental concept. Thanks
> for
> > your opinion.
>
> I have developed the attached patch to address this.
>

I would suggest either dropping the word "potentially" or removing the
sentence. I'm not a fan of this in-between position on principle even if I
don't understand the full reality of the implementation.

If leaving the word "potentially" is necessary it would be good to point
out where the complexity is documented as a part of that - this header file
probably not the best place to go into detail.

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2020-08-22 03:08:12 Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2020-08-22 01:00:33 Re: Improve Managing Databases Overview Doc Page