Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)
| От | Ranier Vilela |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAEudQApZTun+SUCOsJBi1eZeqALkzz+KsC7_HtZgiMs9TxVBZw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c) (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Andres, thanks for taking a look.
Em sáb., 12 de jun. de 2021 às 16:27, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> escreveu:
Hi,
On 2021-06-12 10:55:22 -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> With the recent changes at procarray.c, I take a look in.
> msvc compiler, has some warnings about signed vs unsigned.
> 1. Size_t is weird, because all types are int.
Not sure why I ended up using size_t here. There are cases where using a
natively sized integer can lead to better code being generated, so I'd
want to see some evaluation of the code generation effects.
Yes, sure.
> 2. Wouldn't it be better to initialize static variables?
No, explicit initialization needs additional space in the binary, and
static variables are always zero initialized.
Yes, I missed this part.
But I was worried about this line:
/* hasn't been updated yet */
if (!TransactionIdIsValid(ComputeXidHorizonsResultLastXmin))
if (!TransactionIdIsValid(ComputeXidHorizonsResultLastXmin))
The first run with ComputeXidHorizonsResultLastXmin = 0, is ok?
> 3. There are some shadowing parameters.
Hm, yea, that's not great. Those are from
commit 0e141c0fbb211bdd23783afa731e3eef95c9ad7a
Author: Robert Haas <rhaas@postgresql.org>
Date: 2015-08-06 11:52:51 -0400
Reduce ProcArrayLock contention by removing backends in batches.
Amit, Robert, I assume you don't mind changing this?
> 4. Possible loop beyond numProcs?
What are you referring to here?
My mistake.
best regards,
Ranier Vilela
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: