Home > mailing lists

Re: MAX_BACKENDS size (comment accuracy) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From	Jacob Brazeal
Subject	Re: MAX_BACKENDS size (comment accuracy)
Date	January 27 02:57:50
Msg-id	CA+COZaDH=axxc0x=uXdtjsY+Hz1ktLsTO6+He649UUwGQHNBNQ@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw
In response to	Re: MAX_BACKENDS size (comment accuracy) (Jacob Brazeal <jacob.brazeal@gmail.com>)
Responses	Re: MAX_BACKENDS size (comment accuracy)
List	pgsql-hackers

Looking at v1-0003-WIP-Base-LWLock-limits-directly-on-MAX_BACKENDS.patch, I'm curious about the following assert;

> #define LW_VAL_EXCLUSIVE (MAX_BACKENDS + 1)

...

> StaticAssertDecl(MAX_BACKENDS < LW_VAL_EXCLUSIVE,

"MAX_BACKENDS too big for lwlock.c");

Since LW_VAL_EXCLUSIVE is already defined as MAX_BACKENDS + 1, is this basically just checking for an integer overflow?

From: Jacob Brazeal
Date: 27 January, 02:55:15
Subject: Re: MAX_BACKENDS size (comment accuracy)

From: Jacob Brazeal
Date: 27 January, 03:08:19
Subject: Re: MAX_BACKENDS size (comment accuracy)