Re: [HACKERS] Error while copying a large file in pg_rewind - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kuntal Ghosh
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Error while copying a large file in pg_rewind
Date
Msg-id CAGz5QC+wrYKinX23NPaRVA9Z+1XAcJQtaf2gpZfg8y-3DMkeKw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Error while copying a large file in pg_rewind  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Error while copying a large file in pg_rewind
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've not yet started the patch and it may take some time for me to
>> understand and write
>> the patch in a correct way. Since, you've almost written the patch,
>> IMHO, please go ahead
>> and submit the patch. I'll happily review and test it. :-)
>>
>> Thanks for the notes.
>
> OK, thanks. Here you go.
>
Thanks for the patch. It looks good and it solves the existing issues.

But, I'm little concerned/doubt regarding the following part of the code.
+/*
+ * Converts an int64 from network byte order to native format.
+ */
+static int64
+pg_recvint64(int64 value)
+{
+   union
+   {
+       int64   i64;
+       uint32  i32[2];
+   } swap;
+   int64   result;
+
+   swap.i64 = value;
+
+   result = (uint32) ntohl(swap.i32[0]);
+   result <<= 32;
+   result |= (uint32) ntohl(swap.i32[1]);
+
+   return result;
+}
Does this always work correctly irrespective of the endianess of the
underlying system?


-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Beena Emerson
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size
Next
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Add support for tuple routing to foreign partitions