Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes
Date
Msg-id 9346.1342454259@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List 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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [patch] libpq one-row-at-a-time API
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] DELETE vs TRUNCATE explanation