On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> Hi Amit, Thanks for the review,
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> idea could be to make hashm_spares a two-dimensional array
>>> hashm_spares[32][4] where the first dimension will indicate the split
>>> point and second will indicate the sub-split number. I am not sure
>>> whether it will be simpler or complex than the method used in the
>>> proposed patch, but I think we should think a bit more to see if we
>>> can come up with some simple technique to solve this problem.
>>
>> I think making it a 2-dimensional array will not be any useful in fact
>> we really treat the given array 2-dimensional elements now.
>>
>
> Sure, I was telling you based on that. If you are implicitly treating
> it as 2-dimensional array, it might be easier to compute the array
> offsets.
>
The above sentence looks incomplete.
If you are implicitly treating it as a 2-dimensional array, it might
be easier to compute the array offsets if you explicitly also treats
as a 2-dimensional array.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com