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 CAEudQAqeih_AFWng0nGOmchQaUZBxMomq=2vT4VCWdTDA3jkAw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)  (Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)  (Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Em qui., 15 de jul. de 2021 às 10:04, Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com> escreveu:
Em qui., 15 de jul. de 2021 às 10:01, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com> escreveu:
Thanks, David.

> I lost where. Can you show me?

See the attached warnings.txt.
Thank you.
 

> But the benchmark came from:
> pgbench -i -p 5432 -d postgres
> pgbench -c 50 -T 300 -S -n

I'm afraid this tells nothing unless you also provide the
configuration files and the hardware description, and also some
information on how you checked that there is no performance
degradation on all the other supported platforms and possible
configurations.
 
Benchmarking is a very complicated topic - trust me,
been there!
Absolutely.
 

It would be better to submit two separate patches, the one that
addresses Size_t and another that addresses shadowing. Refactorings
only, nothing else.

Regarding the code formatting, please see src/tools/pgindent.
I will try.
Here are the two patches.
As suggested, reclassified as refactoring only.

regards,
Ranier Vilela
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Introduce pg_receivewal gzip compression tests
Next
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] psql: \dn+ to show size of each schema (and \dA+ for AMs)