Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes
Дата
Msg-id 9346.1342454259@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> So I'm having a hard time understanding under what imaginable set of
>> circumstances this might break.

> Padding inside RelFileNodeBackend would break it, because
> ForwardFsyncRequest copies the rnode as a struct.  So that's why I'm
> asking whether we want to establish an explicit requirement that that
> struct not contain any padding.

BTW, I'd be a lot happier about assuming that bare RelFileNode contains
no padding, because that's at least got all the fields the same type.
So that brings us back to the question of why this code is supporting
fsync requests for local relations in the first place.  Couldn't we have
it ignore those, and then only ship RelFileNode to the checkpointer?
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [patch] libpq one-row-at-a-time API
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PERFORM] DELETE vs TRUNCATE explanation