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.
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 |