Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ranier Vilela
Subject Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)
Date
Msg-id CAEudQApZTun+SUCOsJBi1eZeqALkzz+KsC7_HtZgiMs9TxVBZw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Andres, thanks for taking a look.

Em sáb., 12 de jun. de 2021 às 16:27, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> escreveu:
Hi,

On 2021-06-12 10:55:22 -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> With the recent changes at procarray.c, I take a look in.
> msvc compiler, has some warnings about signed vs unsigned.

> 1. Size_t is weird, because all types are int.

Not sure why I ended up using size_t here. There are cases where using a
natively sized integer can lead to better code being generated, so I'd
want to see some evaluation of the code generation effects.
 Yes, sure.


> 2. Wouldn't it be better to initialize static variables?

No, explicit initialization needs additional space in the binary, and
static variables are always zero initialized.
Yes, I missed this part.
But I was worried about this line:

/* hasn't been updated yet */
if (!TransactionIdIsValid(ComputeXidHorizonsResultLastXmin))

The first run with ComputeXidHorizonsResultLastXmin = 0, is ok?



> 3. There are some shadowing parameters.

Hm, yea, that's not great. Those are from

commit 0e141c0fbb211bdd23783afa731e3eef95c9ad7a
Author: Robert Haas <rhaas@postgresql.org>
Date:   2015-08-06 11:52:51 -0400

    Reduce ProcArrayLock contention by removing backends in batches.

Amit, Robert, I assume you don't mind changing this?
 


> 4. Possible loop beyond numProcs?

What are you referring to here?
My mistake.
 
best regards,
Ranier Vilela

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Jonathan S. Katz"
Date:
Subject: Re: unnesting multirange data types
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: An out-of-date comment in nodeIndexonlyscan.c