Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoY3CruZAB0WZd+K+G2peno=v=-aPxg6yzo0C=1nw116pQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: >> Should this 64KB minimum be mentioned in the documentation? > > You mean user-visible documentation, and not just tuplesort.h? I don't > think that that's necessary. That's a ludicrously low amount of memory > for a worker to be limited to anyway. It will never come up with > remotely sensible use of the feature. I agree. >> + if (!btspool->isunique) >> + { >> + shm_toc_estimate_keys(&pcxt->estimator, 2); >> + } >> >> Project style: people always tell me to drop the curlies in cases like >> that. There are a few more examples in the patch. > > I only do this when there is an "else" that must have curly braces, > too. There are plenty of examples of this from existing code, so I > think it's fine. But I disagree on this one. I think if (blah) stuff(); else { thing(); gargle(); } ...is much better than if (blah) { stuff(); } else { thing(); gargle(); } But if there were a comment on a separate line before the call to stuff(), then I would do it the second way. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: