Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> Don't think we require BUFFERALIGN - MAXALIGN ought to be
> sufficient.
Uh, see my other message just now.
> The use of BUFFERALIGN presumably is to space out things
> into different cachelines, but that doesn't really seem to be important
> with this. Then we can just avoid defining the new macro...
I was feeling a bit uncomfortable with the BUFFERALIGN_DOWN() for a
different reason: if the caller has specified the exact amount of space it
needs, having shm_toc_create discard some could lead to an unexpected
failure. I wonder whether maybe shm_toc_create should just error out if
the number it's handed isn't aligned already.
>> + return BUFFERALIGN(
>> + add_size(offsetof(shm_toc, toc_entry),
>> + add_size(mul_size(e->number_of_keys,
>> sizeof(shm_toc_entry)),
>> + e->space_for_chunks)));
> I think splitting this into separate statements would be better.
+1, it was too complicated already.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
