Hi Tom:
On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 3:13 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Andy Fan writes:
> >> If you use explicit cast, then the code should not be hard, in the
> >> rewrite stage all information should be known.
>
> > Can you point to me where the code is for the XML stuff?
>
> I think Pavel means XMLTABLE,
On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 10:36 AM David Rowley wrote:
> The whole lnext() stuff all feels a bit old now that Lists are arrays.
> I think we'd be better adjusting the code to pass the List index where
> we start from rather than the ListCell to start from. That way we can
> use for_each_from() to
Hi,
I would like to propose to add an option to pgbench so that benchmark
can quit immediately when any client is aborted. Currently, when a
client is aborted due to some error, for example, network trouble,
other clients continue their run until a certain number of transactions
specified -t is
Hi:
>
> can confirm the patch's jsonb_object_field_numeric is faster than
> pg_catalog."numeric"(jsonb).
>
Thanks for the confirmation.
>
> This function is not easy to find out...
>
> select jsonb_numeric(jsonb'{"a":11}'->'a'); --fail
>
jsonb_numeric is a prosrc rather than a proname,
čt 3. 8. 2023 v 16:27 odesílatel Andy Fan napsal:
> Hi:
>
>
>> If you use explicit cast, then the code should not be hard, in the
>> rewrite stage all information should be known.
>>
>
> Can you point to me where the code is for the XML stuff? I thought
> this is a bad idea but I may accept it
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 6:04 PM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
>
>
> Is it? Detoasting only happens if the argument was toasted, and I have
> serious doubts that the result of (a->'a') will be toasted in our
> current system. Sure, we do need to allocate an intermediate result,
> but that's in a
FWIW, I confirmed that my review comments for v22* have all been
addressed in the latest v26* patches.
Thanks!
--
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 at 01:48, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Apart from that +1 from me for the patch, I think it helps focusing the
> attention on what actually matters here.
I think it's worth doing something to improve this code. However, I
think we should go a bit further than what the proposed
David Rowley writes:
> Thank you for the report. I've just pushed a patch which I'm hoping will fix
> it.
Passes now on my VM.
regards, tom lane
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 16:59, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 13:25, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >
> >> > Greetings,
> >> >
> >> > Attached is a patch which introduces a file protocol.h. Instead of
> using
> >> > the actual characters everywhere in the code this patch names the
> >> >
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 3:04 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> Because my patch is all about reducing the heap pages, which are usually
> the expensive part of the index scan. But you're right the "index scan"
> with index filter may access more index pages, because it has fewer
> "access predicates".
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 at 11:54, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I'm seeing some reliable test failures for 32-bit builds on cfbot [0]. At
> a glance, it looks like the relations are swapped in the plan.
Thank you for the report. I've just pushed a patch which I'm hoping will fix it.
David
Nathan Bossart writes:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 09:28:51AM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
>> Thank you for reviewing. I've pushed the patch to master only.
> I'm seeing some reliable test failures for 32-bit builds on cfbot [0]. At
> a glance, it looks like the relations are swapped in the plan.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 7:20 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> However, if reparameterization can *not* happen at the planning time, we
> have chosen a plan which can not be realised meeting a dead end. So as long
> as we can ensure that the reparameterization is possible we can delay
> actual
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 3:04 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> When you say "index page accesses" do you mean accesses to index pages,
> or accesses to heap pages from the index scan?
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Note that that's the dominant cost
for the original BitmapOr plan.
As I said upthread,
On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 09:28:51AM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> Thank you for reviewing. I've pushed the patch to master only.
I'm seeing some reliable test failures for 32-bit builds on cfbot [0]. At
a glance, it looks like the relations are swapped in the plan.
[0]
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 09:38:12PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Great, thanks! I had a quick look at this while rebasing (as well as your
> updated patch) and it seems like a good idea to add this. Unless there are
> objections I will look at getting this in.
Hey Daniel, are you still
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 2:46 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> Sure, having more choices means a risk of making mistakes. But does
> simply postponing the choices to runtime actually solves this?
It solves that one problem, yes. This is particularly important in
cases where we would otherwise get truly
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 13:25, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
>> > Greetings,
>> >
>> > Attached is a patch which introduces a file protocol.h. Instead of using
>> > the actual characters everywhere in the code this patch names the
>> > characters and removes the comments beside each usage.
>>
>> >
On 8/3/23 21:21, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 11:17 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>> Not sure. I'm a bit confused about what exactly is so risky on the plan
>> produced with the patch.
>
> It's all about the worst case. In the scenarios that I'm concerned
> about, we can be
On 8/3/23 20:50, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 4:57 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>> I understand that that's how the patch is structured. It is
>>> nevertheless possible (as things stand) that the patch will make the
>>> planner shift from a plan that uses "Access Predicates" to
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 15:22, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 13:25, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
>> > Greetings,
>> >
>> > Attached is a patch which introduces a file protocol.h. Instead of using
>> > the actual characters everywhere in the code this patch names the
>> > characters and
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 at 02:02, Andy Fan wrote:
> I have checked the updated patch and LGTM.
Thank you for reviewing. I've pushed the patch to master only.
David
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 13:25, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Attached is a patch which introduces a file protocol.h. Instead of using
> > the actual characters everywhere in the code this patch names the
> > characters and removes the comments beside each usage.
>
> > +#define
> On 3 Jul 2023, at 15:27, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> But I don't see the point of tracking OldestInitializedPage. It seems cheap
> enough that we could, if there's a need for it, but I don't see the need.
Based on the above comments, and the thread stalling, I am marking this
returned with
> On 3 Jul 2023, at 15:57, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
>> On 16 May 2023, at 20:51, Sergey Dudoladov
>> wrote:
>
>> I have attached the fourth version of the patch.
>
> This version fails the ldap_password test on all platforms on pg_ctl failing
> to start:
>
> [14:48:10.544] --- stdout ---
On 8/3/23 01:51, Matt Smiley wrote:
> I thought it might be helpful to share some more details from one of the
> case studies behind Nik's suggestion.
>
> Bursty contention on lock_manager lwlocks recently became a recurring
> cause of query throughput drops for GitLab.com, and we got to study
> On 11 Jul 2023, at 01:06, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>
> On 3/12/23 09:17, Ankit Kumar Pandey wrote:
>> Attaching updated patch with a fix for an issue in window function.
>> I have also fixed naming convention of patch as last patch had incompatible
>> name.
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch does not
On 02.08.2023 21:58, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 8:58 AM Alena Rybakina wrote:
No, I haven't thought about it yet. I studied the example and it would
really be nice to add optimization here. I didn't notice any problems
with its implementation. I also have an obvious example
> Greetings,
>
> Attached is a patch which introduces a file protocol.h. Instead of using
> the actual characters everywhere in the code this patch names the
> characters and removes the comments beside each usage.
> +#define DESCRIBE_PREPARED 'S'
> +#define DESCRIBE_PORTAL
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 11:17 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> Not sure. I'm a bit confused about what exactly is so risky on the plan
> produced with the patch.
It's all about the worst case. In the scenarios that I'm concerned
about, we can be quite sure that the saving from not using a BitmapOr
will
Andy Fan writes:
>> If you use explicit cast, then the code should not be hard, in the
>> rewrite stage all information should be known.
> Can you point to me where the code is for the XML stuff?
I think Pavel means XMLTABLE, which IMO is an ugly monstrosity of
syntax --- but count on the SQL
On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 12:07:21PM -0600, Dave Cramer wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 11:59, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I don't really like the name pattern you've chosen though; I think we
>> need to have a common prefix in the defines. Maybe prepending PQMSG_ to
>> each name would be enough. And
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 4:57 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> > I understand that that's how the patch is structured. It is
> > nevertheless possible (as things stand) that the patch will make the
> > planner shift from a plan that uses "Access Predicates" to the maximum
> > extent possible when scanning
On 8/3/23 18:47, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 4:20 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>> Which is just the 7 buffers ...
>>
>> Did I do something wrong?
>
> I think that it might have something to do with your autovacuum
> settings. Note that the plan that you've shown for the master
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 05:50, David Rowley wrote:
> I'm currently thinking it's
> a bad idea to backpatch this but I'd consider it more if someone else
> thought it was a good idea or if more people came along complaining
> about poor plan choice in plans containing WindowAggs. Currently, it
>
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 11:59, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2023-Aug-03, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Attached is a patch which introduces a file protocol.h. Instead of using
> > the actual characters everywhere in the code this patch names the
> > characters and removes the comments
On 2023-Aug-03, Dave Cramer wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Attached is a patch which introduces a file protocol.h. Instead of using
> the actual characters everywhere in the code this patch names the
> characters and removes the comments beside each usage.
I saw this one last week. I think it's a
Greetings,
Attached is a patch which introduces a file protocol.h. Instead of using
the actual characters everywhere in the code this patch names the
characters and removes the comments beside each usage.
Dave Cramer
0001-Created-protocol.h.patch
Description: Binary data
This is the first I am learning about clang plugins. Interesting
concept. Did you give any thought to using libclang instead of
a compiler plugin? I am kind of doing similar work, but I went with
libclang instead of a plugin.
--
Tristan Partin
Neon (https://neon.tech)
Hi,
In the commit [1] one side change was to fix mixed up usage of
BlockNumber and Buffer variables. This was a one-off manual effort, and
indeed it hardly seems possible to get compilation warnings for such
code, as long as the underlying types could be converted in a standard
conforming way. As
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 4:20 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> Which is just the 7 buffers ...
>
> Did I do something wrong?
I think that it might have something to do with your autovacuum
settings. Note that the plan that you've shown for the master branch
isn't the same one that appears in
Both patches look good to me.
--
Tristan Partin
Neon (https://neon.tech)
Hi:
> If you use explicit cast, then the code should not be hard, in the
> rewrite stage all information should be known.
>
Can you point to me where the code is for the XML stuff? I thought
this is a bad idea but I may accept it if some existing code does
such a thing already. "such thing"
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 7:29 PM David Rowley wrote:
> Thanks for having a look at this.
>
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 18:49, Andy Fan wrote:
> > 1. ORDER BY or PARTITION BY
> >
> > select *, count(two) over (order by unique1) from tenk1 limit 1;
> > DEBUG: startup_tuples = 1
> > DEBUG:
Hi
čt 3. 8. 2023 v 15:23 odesílatel Andy Fan napsal:
> Hi:
>
>
>> More, I believe so lot of people uses more common syntax, and then this
>> syntax should to have good performance - for jsonb - (val->'op')::numeric
>> works, and then there should not be performance penalty, because this
>>
Hi:
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 8:34 PM Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 2023-08-03 03:53, Andy Fan wrote:
> > I didn't realize timetime types are binary compatible with SQL,
> > so maybe we can have some similar optimization as well.
> > (It is a pity that timestamp(tz) are not binary, or else we may
> >
Hi,
Thanks for the review!
Current status of the patch is:
- 'WAL read' stats in xlogrecovery.c are added to pg_stat_io.
- IOCONTEXT_INIT is added to count 'WAL init'. 'WAL init' stats are
added to pg_stat_io.
- pg_stat_io shows different op_bytes for the IOOBJECT_WAL operations.
- Working on
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 12:11 PM Yuya Watari wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I really appreciate sharing very useful scripts and benchmarking results.
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 6:51 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > Given that most of the developers run assert enabled builds it would
> > be good to bring
Hi:
> More, I believe so lot of people uses more common syntax, and then this
> syntax should to have good performance - for jsonb - (val->'op')::numeric
> works, and then there should not be performance penalty, because this
> syntax will be used in 99%.
>
This looks like a valid opinion IMO,
## Laetitia Avrot (laetitia.av...@gmail.com):
> For my customer, their use case is to be able from an SQL client to double
> check they're on the right host before doing things that could become a
> production disaster.
Why not use cluster_name for that? Even if it may not be relevant
for their
On 2023-08-03 03:53, Andy Fan wrote:
I didn't realize timetime types are binary compatible with SQL,
so maybe we can have some similar optimization as well.
(It is a pity that timestamp(tz) are not binary, or else we may
just need one operator).
Not to veer from the thread, but something about
Hi:
>
> Yes, it's not great, but that's just how this works. We can't
> pre-specialize all possible operations that one might want to do in
> PostgreSQL - that'd be absurdly expensive for binary and initial
> database sizes.
>
Are any people saying we would pre-specialize all possible
Le jeu. 3 août 2023 à 14:20, <066ce...@free.fr> a écrit :
>
>
> > Agreed, depending on how hosts and dns are set, it can be useless.
> > But normally, companies have host making standards to avoid that.
>
>
> BTW you already have it :
>
> select setting from pg_settings where name =
On 8/3/23 03:32, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 6:48 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>> How come we don't know that until the execution time? Surely when
>> building the paths/plans, we match the clauses to the index keys, no? Or
>> are you saying that just having a scan key is not
Hi,
Amit Kapila , 3 Ağu 2023 Per, 09:22 tarihinde şunu
yazdı:
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 9:35 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > I checked the latest patch v25-0001.
> >
> > LGTM.
> >
>
> Thanks, I have pushed 0001. Let's focus on the remaining patches.
>
Thanks!
Peter Smith , 3 Ağu 2023 Per, 12:06
Thanks for having a look at this.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 18:49, Andy Fan wrote:
> 1. ORDER BY or PARTITION BY
>
> select *, count(two) over (order by unique1) from tenk1 limit 1;
> DEBUG: startup_tuples = 1
> DEBUG: startup_tuples = 1
>
> select *, count(two) over (partition by unique1) from
On 8/3/23 07:26, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 6:32 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> I don't dispute the fact that this can only happen when the planner
>> believes (with good reason) that the expected cost will be lower. But
>> I maintain that there is a novel risk to be concerned
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 4:14 PM Richard Guo wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 12:38 PM Ashutosh Bapat <
> ashutosh.bapat@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sometimes it would help to avoid the translation at all if we postpone
> the reparameterization until createplan.c, such as in the case that a
>
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 12:28 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 5:01 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > > The work division amongst the sync workers can
> > > be simple, the logical replication launcher builds a shared memory
> > > structure based on number of slots to sync and
> Agreed, depending on how hosts and dns are set, it can be useless.
> But normally, companies have host making standards to avoid that.
BTW you already have it :
select setting from pg_settings where name = 'listen_addresses'
No ?
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 12:38 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 6:50 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alternatively, could we postpone the reparameterization until
> > createplan.c? Having to build reparameterized expressions we might
> > not use seems expensive, and it would also
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 1:43 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Thank you for giving comments! PSA new version patchset.
>
> > 1. Do we really need 0001 patch after the latest change proposed by
> > Vignesh in the 0004 patch?
>
> I removed 0001 patch and revived old patch which serializes slots
Le jeu. 3 août 2023, 11:31, Matthias van de Meent <
boekewurm+postg...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 10:37, Laetitia Avrot
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Hackers,
> >
> > One of my customers suggested creating a function that could return the
> server's hostname.
>
> Mostly for my
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 at 03:05, Andy Fan wrote:
>
> Hi Matthias:
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 7:33 AM Andy Fan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 7:03 PM Matthias van de Meent
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 at 06:39, Andy Fan wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi:
>>> >
>>> > Currently if we want to
Hi
čt 3. 8. 2023 v 9:53 odesílatel Andy Fan napsal:
> Hi Pavel:
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> I don't like this solution because it is bloating operators and it is not
>> extra readable.
>>
>
> If we support it with cast, could we say we are bloating CAST? It is true
> that it is not extra
I think the code to determine that fk of a partition is inherited or not is
not enough.
For example, in this case, foreign key r_1_p_id_fkey1 is not inherited
from parent.
If conform->conparentid(in DetachPartitionFinalize func) is valid, we
should recheck confrelid(pg_constraint) field.
I try
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 10:37, Laetitia Avrot wrote:
>
> Dear Hackers,
>
> One of my customers suggested creating a function that could return the
> server's hostname.
Mostly for my curiosity: What would be their use case?
I only see limited usability, considering that the local user's
hostname
Dear Amit,
> I see your point related to WALAVAIL_REMOVED status of the slot but
> did you test the scenario I have explained in my comment? Basically, I
> want to know whether it can impact the user in some way. So, please
> check whether the corresponding subscriptions will be allowed to drop.
Hi hackers,
I have write an initial patch to retire the disable_cost GUC, which labeled a
flag on the Path struct instead of adding up a big cost which is hard to
estimate. Though it involved in tons of plan changes in regression tests, I
have tested on some simple test cases such as eagerly
Just to clarify my previous post, I meant we will need new v26* patches
v24-0001 -> not needed because v25-0001 pushed
v24-0002 -> v26-0001
v24-0003 -> v26-0002
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 6:19 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Melih,
>
> Now that v25-0001 has been pushed, can you please rebase the
On 2023-Aug-03, tender wang wrote:
> I think old "sub-FK" should not be dropped, that will be violates foreign
> key constraint.
Yeah, I've been playing more with the patch and it is definitely not
doing the right things. Just eyeballing the contents of pg_trigger and
pg_constraint for
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 7:05 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> While working on [1], I noticed $SUBJECT: commit e7cb7ee14 failed to
> update comments for the CustomPath struct in pathnodes.h, and commit
> f49842d1e failed to update docs about custom scan path callbacks in
> custom-scan.sgml, IIUC.
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 12:14 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> We can't use the same names for both with/without-parameter functions
> because there is no function overloading in C. In patch v3-0001 I've
> replaced the "dual set of macros", with a single inline function of a
> different name, and one
Dear Hackers,
One of my customers suggested creating a function that could return the
server's hostname.
After a quick search, we found [this Wiki page](
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Pg_gethostname) referring to [that
extension](https://github.com/theory/pg-hostname/) from David E. Wheeler.
Hi Sultan,
Thanks for your email and interest in PostgreSQL.
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 8:41 AM Sultan Berentaev
wrote:
>
>
> Dear PostgreSQL Development Team,
>
> I am inquiring about the availability of certain functionalities in the
standard PostgreSQL database. Could you please confirm if the
Hi Melih,
Now that v25-0001 has been pushed, can you please rebase the remaining patches?
--
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
Hi Pavel:
Thanks for the feedback.
I don't like this solution because it is bloating operators and it is not
> extra readable.
>
If we support it with cast, could we say we are bloating CAST? It is true
that it is not extra readable, if so how about a->>'a' return text?
Actually
I can't
On 02.08.23 16:39, Tristan Partin wrote:
I like the idea. Though the way you have it implemented at the moment
seems like a trap in that any time zlib.h is included someone also has
to remember to add this define. I would recommend adding the define to
the build systems instead.
Ok, moved to
I think old "sub-FK" should not be dropped, that will be violates foreign
key constraint. For example :
postgres=# insert into r values(1,1);
INSERT 0 1
postgres=# ALTER TABLE r DETACH PARTITION r_1;
ALTER TABLE
postgres=# delete from p_1 where id = 1;
DELETE 1
postgres=# select * from r_1;
id |
On Tue, 2023-08-01 at 21:52 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I
> typically see this done with two ѕeparate lists and forboth().
Agreed, done.
>
> Any reason not to use hash_combine() here?
Thank you, fixed.
> > I changed it to move the hook so that it's called after retrieving
> > from
> > the
Hi David:
Sorry for feedback at the last minute! I study the patch and find the
following cases.
1. ORDER BY or PARTITION BY
select *, count(two) over (order by unique1) from tenk1 limit 1;
DEBUG: startup_tuples = 1
DEBUG: startup_tuples = 1
select *, count(two) over (partition by unique1)
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 1:43 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Thank you for giving comments! PSA new version patchset.
>
> > 3.
> > + /*
> > + * Get replication slots.
> > + *
> > + * XXX: Which information must be extracted from old node? Currently three
> > + * attributes are extracted
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 1:23 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
>
> That is not expected & acceptable. But, somehow, I am not able to reproduce
> this behavior. Could you please retry this experiment by adding "table_schema"
> in your output query?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Regards,
> Amul
>
sorry. my mistake.
I
Updated docs a bit. I'll see about adding this to the next CF in hopes
of attracting a reviewer. :-)
v3-0001-Add-WAIT-ONLY-option-to-LOCK-command.patch
Description: Binary data
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 9:35 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 11:19 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:09 PM Melih Mutlu wrote:
> > >
> > > PFA an updated version with some of the earlier reviews addressed.
> > > Forgot to include them in the previous email.
>
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 6:43 PM Andrey Lepikhov
wrote:
> You introduced list_ptr_cmp as an extern function of a List, but use it
> the only under USE_ASSERT_CHECKING ifdef.
> Maybe you hide it under USE_ASSERT_CHECKING or remove all the stuff?
Thank you for your quick reply and for
87 matches
Mail list logo
