On 2019-03-11 13:31:26 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-03-11 12:37:46 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2019-03-08 19:13:10 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Changes:
> > > - I've added comments to all the callbacks in the first commit / the
> > > scan commit
> > > - I've renamed table_gimmegimmeslot to table_slot_create
> > > - I've made the callbacks and their wrappers more consistently named
> > > - I've added asserts for necessary callbacks in scan commit
> > > - Lots of smaller cleanup
> > > - Added a commit message
> > >
> > > While 0001 is pretty bulky, the interesting bits concentrate on a
> > > comparatively small area. I'd appreciate if somebody could give the
> > > comments added in tableam.h a read (both on callbacks, and their
> > > wrappers, as they have different audiences). It'd make sense to first
> > > read the commit message, to understand the goal (and I'd obviously also
> > > appreciate suggestions for improvements there as well).
> > >
> > > I'm pretty happy with the current state of the scan patch. I plan to do
> > > two more passes through it (formatting, comment polishing, etc. I don't
> > > know of any functional changes needed), and then commit it, lest
> > > somebody objects.
> >
> > Here's a further polished version. Pretty boring changes:
> > - newlines
> > - put tableam.h into the correct place
> > - a few comment improvements, including typos
> > - changed reorderqueue_push() to accept the slot. That avoids an
> > unnecessary heap_copytuple() in some cases
> >
> > No meaningful changes in later patches.
>
> I pushed this. There's a failure on 32bit machines, unfortunately. The
> problem comes from the ParallelTableScanDescData embedded in BTShared -
> after the change the compiler can't see that that actually needs more
> alignment, because ParallelTableScanDescData doesn't have any 8byte
> members. That's a problem for just about all such "struct inheritance"
> type tricks postgres, but we normally just allocate them separately,
> guaranteeing maxalign. Given that we here already allocate enough space
> after the BTShared struct, it's probably easiest to just not embed the
> struct anymore.
I've pushed an attempt to fix this, which locally fixes 32bit
builds. It's copying the alignment logic for shm_toc_allocate, namely
using BUFFERALIGN for alignment. We should probably invent a more
appropriate define for this at some point...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
