On 2014-11-01 12:57:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2014-10-31 18:48:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> While the basic idea is sound, this particular implementation seems > >> pretty bizarre. What's with the "md_seg_no" stuff, and why is that > >> array typed size_t? > > > It stores the length of the array of _MdfdVec entries. > > Oh. "seg_no" seems like not a very good choice of name then. > Perhaps "md_seg_count" or something like that would be more intelligible.
That's fine with me. > And personally I'd have made it an int, because we are certainly not doing > segment-number arithmetic in anything wider than int anywhere else. Fine with me too. I picked size_t by habit, because there's projects that don't allow anything else to be used for lengths of memory... I've, during testing, also noticed it has accidentally introduced a vfd/memory leak... So I'll repost a version with those fixes. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
