On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 12:55 PM John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 6:59 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > + /* Find the control object in shared memory */
> > > + control = handle;
> >
> > I think it's mostly because of readability; it makes clear that the
> > handle should be castable to dsa_pointer and it's a control object. I
> > borrowed it from dshash_attach().
>
> I find that a bit strange, but I went ahead and kept it.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 9:13 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The 0001 patch looks good to me. I have some minor comments:
>
> > +PGFILEDESC = "test_radixtree - test code for src/backend/lib/radixtree.c"
> > +
> >
> > "src/backend/lib/radixtree.c" should be updated to
> > "src/include/lib/radixtree.h".
>
> Done.
>
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/src/test/modules/test_radixtree/README
> > @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
> > +test_integerset contains unit tests for testing the integer set implementation
> > +in src/backend/lib/integerset.c.
> > +
> > +The tests verify the correctness of the implementation, but they can also be
> > +used as a micro-benchmark. If you set the 'intset_test_stats' flag in
> > +test_integerset.c, the tests will print extra information about execution time
> > +and memory usage.
> >
> > This file is not updated for test_radixtree. I think we can remove it
> > as the test cases in test_radixtree are clear.
>
> Done. I pushed this with a few last-minute cosmetic adjustments. This
> has been a very long time coming, but we're finally in the home
> stretch!
>
> Already, I see sifaka doesn't like this, and I'm looking now...
It's complaining that these forward declarations...
/* generate forward declarations necessary to use the radix tree */
#ifdef RT_DECLARE
typedef struct RT_RADIX_TREE RT_RADIX_TREE;
typedef struct RT_ITER RT_ITER;
... cause "error: redefinition of typedef 'rt_radix_tree' is a C11
feature [-Werror,-Wtypedef-redefinition]"
I'll look in the other templates to see if what they do.