Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGLO9njPo0J0UEjTQLgzmE_w37iK=WoZRj0zT+3R2S7Mig@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue
Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue
Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 2:03 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2019-Apr-04, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > I don't think it's project policy to put a single typedef into its own
> > header like that, and I'm not sure where else to put it.
>
> shrug.  Looks fine to me.  I suppose if we don't have it anywhere, it's
> just because we haven't needed that particular trick yet.  Creating a
> file with a lone typedef seems better than using uint32 to me.

It was commit 9fac5fd7 that gave me that idea.

Ok, here is a patch that adds a one-typedef header and uses
SegmentIndex to replace all cases of BlockNumber and int holding a
segment number (where as an "index" or a "count").

-- 
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: COPY FREEZE and setting PD_ALL_VISIBLE/visibility map bits
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: PostgreSQL Buildfarm Client Release 10