Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing
От | Fabien COELHO |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.21.1809010716470.32764@lancre обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello, >> Okay, for the memo replay_image_masked and master_image_masked >> in xlog.c could make use of the new structure. SetWALSegSize in >> pg_standby.c and WriteEmptyXLOG in pg_resetwal.c, and pg_upgrade's >> file.c could also be patched. > > I intentionally didn't change replay_image_masked/master_image_masked > to use statically-allocated buffers. Since, AFAICS, those aren't > needed in most backend processes, they'd just be eating 16KB of > per-process data space to no purpose. > > The others you mention could be changed, probably, but I didn't > bother as they didn't seem performance-critical. I'd go for having just one same approach everywhere, for code base homogeneity. >>> +typedef union PGAlignedBuffer > >> One complain I have is about the name of those structures. Perhaps >> PGAlignedBlock and PGAlignedXlogBlock make more sense? > > Don't have a strong preference, anybody else have an opinion? I like "Block" better, because it's more precise. > (I also wondered whether to use "WAL" instead of "XLog" in that > struct name, but it seems like we've mostly stuck with "xlog" > in internal C names.) Best to blend with the surrounding code in the header file? -- Fabien.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: