Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

Hi,

On 2017-01-25 12:26:21 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> diff --git a/src/backend/access/common/tupdesc.c b/src/backend/access/common/tupdesc.c
> index 083c0303dc..2eb3a420ac 100644
> --- a/src/backend/access/common/tupdesc.c
> +++ b/src/backend/access/common/tupdesc.c
> @@ -629,6 +629,14 @@ TupleDescInitBuiltinEntry(TupleDesc desc,
>              att->attstorage = 'p';
>              att->attcollation = InvalidOid;
>              break;
> +
> +        case INT8OID:
> +            att->attlen = 8;
> +            att->attbyval = true;
> +            att->attalign = 'd';
> +            att->attstorage = 'p';
> +            att->attcollation = InvalidOid;
> +            break;
>      }
>  }

INT8 isn't unconditionally byval, is it?

>      /* slot_name */
> -    len = strlen(NameStr(MyReplicationSlot->data.name));
> -    pq_sendint(&buf, len, 4);    /* col1 len */
> -    pq_sendbytes(&buf, NameStr(MyReplicationSlot->data.name), len);
> +    values[0] = PointerGetDatum(cstring_to_text(NameStr(MyReplicationSlot->data.name)));

That seems a bit long.


I've not done like the most careful review ever, but I'm in favor of the
general change (provided the byval thing is fixed obviously).

Greetings,

Andres Freund