Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] SortSupport for macaddr type - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
| From | Brandur Leach |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] SortSupport for macaddr type |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | CABR_9B__UJJjDckpEPJuuFsQMoVBYOLOPKNS7Rjh3NZGa7BJJA@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] SortSupport for macaddr type (Julien Rouhaud <julien.rouhaud@dalibo.com>) |
| Responses |
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] SortSupport for macaddr type
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] SortSupport for macaddr type Re: [PATCH] SortSupport for macaddr type |
| List | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Julien,
Thanks for the expedient reply, even after I'd dropped the
ball for so long :)
> Indeed, I should have checked more examples :/ There
> isn't any clear pattern for this, so I guess any one
> would be ok.
Yeah, agreed. If it's alright with you, I ended up moving
the naming back to `macaddr_cmp_internal` just because it
results in a smaller final diff.
> Thanks. I'm ok with this, but maybe a native english
> speaker would have a better opinion on this.
Cool! I just re-read my own comment a few days later and I
think that it still mostly makes sense, but definitely open
to other edits if anyone else has one.
> One last thing, I noticed that you added:
>
> +static int macaddr_internal_cmp(macaddr *a1, macaddr *a2);
>
> but the existing function is declared as
>
> static int32
> macaddr_internal_cmp(macaddr *a1, macaddr *a2)
>
> I'd be in favor to declare both as int.
Great catch! I have no idea how I missed that. I've done as
you suggested and made them both "int", which seems
consistent with SortSupport implementations elsewhere.
> After this, I think this patch will be ready for committer.
Excellent! I've attached a new (and hopefully final)
version of the patch.
Two final questions about the process if you'd be so kind:
* Should I change the status on the Commitfest link [1] or
do I leave that to you (or someone else like a committer)?
* I've been generating a new OID value with the
`unused_oids` script, but pretty much every time I rebase
I collide with someone else's addition and need to find a
new one. Is it better for me to pick an OID in an exotic
range for my final patch, or that a committer just finds
a new one (if necessary) as they're putting it into
master?
Thanks again!
Brandur
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Julien Rouhaud <julien.rouhaud@dalibo.com> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 01:56:41PM -0800, Brandur Leach wrote:
Hello Brandur, thanks for the updated patch!
>
> > * you used macaddr_cmp_internal() function name, for uuid
> > the same function is named uuid_internal_cmp(). Using
> > the same naming pattern is probably better.
>
> I was a little split on this one! It's true that UUID uses
> `_internal_cmp`, but `_cmp_internal` is also used in a
> number of places like `enum`, `timetz`, and `network`. I
> don't have a strong feeling about it either way, so I've
> changed it to `_internal_cmp` to match UUID as you
> suggested.
>
Indeed, I should have checked more examples :/ There isn't any clear pattern
for this, so I guess any one would be ok.
> > * the function comment on macaddr_abbrev_convert()
> > doesn't mention specific little-endian handling
>
> I tried to bake this into the comment text. Here are the
> relevant lines of the amended version:
>
> * Packs the bytes of a 6-byte MAC address into a Datum and treats it as
> an
> * unsigned integer for purposes of comparison. On a 64-bit machine,
> there
> * will be two zeroed bytes of padding. The integer is converted to
> native
> * endianness to facilitate easy comparison.
>
> > * "There will be two bytes of zero padding on the least
> > significant end"
> >
> > "least significant bits" would be better
>
> Also done. Here is the amended version:
>
> * On a 64-bit machine, zero out the 8-byte datum and copy the 6 bytes of
> * the MAC address in. There will be two bytes of zero padding on the end
> * of the least significant bits.
>
Thanks. I'm ok with this, but maybe a native english speaker would have a
better opinion on this.
> > * This patch will trigger quite a lot modifications after
> > a pgindent run. Could you try to run pgindent on mac.c
> > before sending an updated patch?
>
> Good call! I've run the new version through pgindent.
>
Thanks also, no more issue here.
> Let me know if you have any further feedback and/or
> suggestions. Thanks!
One last thing, I noticed that you added:
+static int macaddr_internal_cmp(macaddr *a1, macaddr *a2);
but the existing function is declared as
static int32
macaddr_internal_cmp(macaddr *a1, macaddr *a2)
I'd be in favor to declare both as int.
After this, I think this patch will be ready for committer.
Attachment
pgsql-hackers by date: