Stephen Frost writes:
> Updated (combined) patch attached for review. I went through and looked
> again to make sure there weren't any cases of making an unaligned
> pointer to a struct and didn't see any, and I added some comments to
> _bt_restore_page().
This seems to have fallen through a cra
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:17 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Great, thanks, I'll mark it as Ready For Committer then.
>
> Robert, since you were on this thread and the patch is mostly yours
> anyway, did you want to commit it? I'm happy to do so also, either way.
Feel free.
--
Robert Haas
Enterpris
Tom,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > Updated (combined) patch attached for review. I went through and looked
> > again to make sure there weren't any cases of making an unaligned
> > pointer to a struct and didn't see any, and I added some comments to
> > _bt_r
Stephen Frost writes:
> Updated (combined) patch attached for review. I went through and looked
> again to make sure there weren't any cases of making an unaligned
> pointer to a struct and didn't see any, and I added some comments to
> _bt_restore_page().
Looks OK from here.
Greetings Tom, Robert, Ildar, all,
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
> That said, since it's not aligned, regardless of the what craziness the
> compiler might try to pull, we probably shouldn't go casting it
> to something that later hackers might think will be aligned, but we
> should
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 1:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I certainly hadn't been thinking about that. I didn't see any
>> issues in my testing (where I created a table with a btree index and
>> insert'd a bunch of records into and then killed the server, forcing WAL
>> replay and then checked that the
On 2018-01-11 13:26:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wonder whether there is a way to get alignment traps on Intel-type
> hardware. It's getting less and less likely that most hackers are
> developing on anything else, so that we don't see gotchas of this
> type until code hits the buildfarm (and eve
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> I'm on board with Stephen's changes, except in _bt_restore_page.
>> The issue there is that the "from" pointer isn't necessarily adequately
>> aligned to be considered an IndexTuple pointer; that's why we're doing
>> the memcpy danc
Tom,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > I'll leave the patch status in 'Needs review' since there's more
> > changes, but hopefully someone can take a look and we can move this
> > along, seems like a pretty small and reasonable improvement.
>
> I'm on board with
Stephen Frost writes:
> I'll leave the patch status in 'Needs review' since there's more
> changes, but hopefully someone can take a look and we can move this
> along, seems like a pretty small and reasonable improvement.
I'm on board with Stephen's changes, except in _bt_restore_page.
The issue
Robert, all,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > +1. I was also once confused with these macros. I think this is a
> > good cleanup. On a quick look, I don't see any problem with your
> > changes.
>
> One difference between th
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> One difference between those two macros is that IndexTupleSize
> forcibly casts the argument to IndexTuple, which means that you don't
> get any type-checking when you use that one. I suggest that in
> addition to removing IndexTupleDSize as p
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> +1. I was also once confused with these macros. I think this is a
> good cleanup. On a quick look, I don't see any problem with your
> changes.
One difference between those two macros is that IndexTupleSize
forcibly casts the argument to In
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Ildar Musin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While I was looking through the indexes code I got confused by couple of
> macros - IndexTupleSize() and IndexTupleDSize() - which seem to do the same
> thing with only difference that the first one takes pointer as an argument
> wh
Hi all,
While I was looking through the indexes code I got confused by couple of
macros - IndexTupleSize() and IndexTupleDSize() - which seem to do the
same thing with only difference that the first one takes pointer as an
argument while the second one takes struct. And in most cases
IndexTup
15 matches
Mail list logo