Re: Use read streams in CREATE DATABASE command when the strategy is wal_log

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
Искать
От
Noah Misch
Тема
Re: Use read streams in CREATE DATABASE command when the strategy is wal_log
Дата
Msg-id
20240723123400.64@rfd.leadboat.com
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Use read streams in CREATE DATABASE command when the strategy is wal_log Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>
Re: Use read streams in CREATE DATABASE command when the strategy is wal_log Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Re: Use read streams in CREATE DATABASE command when the strategy is wal_log Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>
Re: Use read streams in CREATE DATABASE command when the strategy is wal_log Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Re: Use read streams in CREATE DATABASE command when the strategy is wal_log Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>
Re: Use read streams in CREATE DATABASE command when the strategy is wal_log Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Re: Use read streams in CREATE DATABASE command when the strategy is wal_log Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>
Re: Use read streams in CREATE DATABASE command when the strategy is wal_log Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Re: Use read streams in CREATE DATABASE command when the strategy is wal_log Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>
Re: Use read streams in CREATE DATABASE command when the strategy is wal_log Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Re: Use read streams in CREATE DATABASE command when the strategy is wal_log Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>
Re: Use read streams in CREATE DATABASE command when the strategy is wal_log Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 12:00:45PM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2024 at 21:14, Noah Misch  wrote:
> > On a different naming topic, my review missed that field name
> > copy_storage_using_buffer_read_stream_private.last_block doesn't fit how the
> > field is used.  Code uses it like an nblocks.  So let's either rename the
> > field or change the code to use it as a last_block (e.g. initialize it to
> > nblocks-1, not nblocks).
> 
> I prefered renaming it as nblocks, since that is how it was used in
> RelationCopyStorageUsingBuffer() before. Also, I realized that instead
> of setting p.blocknum = 0; initializing blkno as 0 and using
> p.blocknum = blkno makes sense. Because, p.blocknum and blkno should
> always start with the same block number. The relevant patch is
> attached.

I felt the local variable change was not a clear improvement.  It would have
been fine for the original patch to do it in that style, but the style of the
original patch was also fine.  So I've pushed just the struct field rename.


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Jeremy Schneider
Дата:
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: replace strtok()
FAQ