Re: [PATCH] V3: Idle in transaction cancellation

Hi Greg,

On Thursday 16 December 2010 13:32:46 Greg Smith wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
> > On Thursday 02 December 2010 22:21:37 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Excerpts from Andres Freund's message of sáb oct 30 05:49:21 -0300 2010:
> >>> Ill set this up for the next commitfest, I don't think I can do much
> >>> more  without further input.
> >>
> >> Are you reserving about 20 bits for levels, and 12 for flags?  Given the
> >> relatively scarce growth of levels, I think we could live with about 6
> >> or 7 bits for level, rest for flags.
> >
> > The number I picked was absolutely arbitrary I admit. Neither did I think
> > it would be likely to see more levels, nor did I forsee many flags, so I
> > just chose some number I liked in that certain moment ;-)
> This bit of detail seems to have died down without being resolved;
> bumping it to add a reminder about that.
> I count four issues of various sizes left with this patch right now:
>
> 1) This levels bit
If we go with that approach I think the amount of bits reserved for both is
big enough to never be reached in reality. Also there is no backward-compat
issue in changing as were not ABI stable between major releases anyway...

> 2) Can the approach used be simplified or the code made cleaner?
> 3) What is the interaction with Hot Standby error handling?
It works for me - not to say that independent testing wouldn't be good though.

> 4) The usual code formatting nitpicking, Kevin mentioned braces being an
> issue
Will redo if the other issues are cleared.

Andres