Re: Refactoring backend fork+exec code
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Refactoring backend fork+exec code |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0c247a78-9dac-4584-8e87-39f2b45bec68@iki.fi обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Refactoring backend fork+exec code (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>) |
Ответы |
Re: Refactoring backend fork+exec code
Re: Refactoring backend fork+exec code |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 22/02/2024 02:37, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 15/02/2024 07:09, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 3:07 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: >>>> I think the last remaining question here is about the 0- vs 1-based indexing >>>> of BackendIds. Is it a good idea to switch to 0-based indexing? And if we do >>>> it, should we reserve PGPROC 0. I'm on the fence on this one. >>> >>> I lean towards it being a good idea. Having two internal indexing schemes was >>> bad enough so far, but at least one would fairly quickly notice if one used >>> the wrong one. If they're just offset by 1, it might end up taking longer, >>> because that'll often also be a valid id. >> >> Yeah, I think making everything 0-based is probably the best way >> forward long term. It might require more cleanup work to get there, >> but it's just a lot simpler in the end, IMHO. > > Here's another patch version that does that. Yeah, I agree it's nicer in > the end. > > I'm pretty happy with this now. I'll read through these patches myself > again after sleeping over it and try to get this committed by the end of > the week, but another pair of eyes wouldn't hurt. And pushed. Thanks for the reviews! -- Heikki Linnakangas Neon (https://neon.tech)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: