On 2023-07-12 02:39, Tristan Partin wrote:
>> From bf06b8100cb747031959fe81a2d19baabc4838cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Masahiro Ikeda <masahiro.ikeda.us@hco.ntt.co.jp>
>> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:53:29 +0900
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Support custom wait events for extensions.
>
>> + * This is indexed by event ID minus
>> NUM_BUILTIN_WAIT_EVENT_EXTENSION, and
>> + * stores the names of all dynamically-created event ID known to the
>> current
>> + * process. Any unused entries in the array will contain NULL.
>
> The second ID should be plural.
Thanks for reviewing. Yes, I'll fix it.
>> + /* If necessary, create or enlarge array. */
>> + if (eventId >= ExtensionWaitEventTrancheNamesAllocated)
>> + {
>> + int newalloc;
>> +
>> + newalloc = pg_nextpower2_32(Max(8, eventId + 1));
>
> Given the context of our last conversation, I assume this code was
> copied from somewhere else. Since this is new code, I think it would
> make more sense if newalloc was a uint16 or size_t.
As Michael-san said, I used LWLockRegisterTranche() as a reference.
I think it is a good idea to fix the current master. I'll modify the
above code accordingly.
> From what I undersatnd, Neon differs from upstream in some way related
> to this patch. I am trying to ascertain how that is. I hope to provide
> more feedback when I learn more about it.
Oh, it was unexpected for me. Thanks for researching the reason.
Regards,
--
Masahiro Ikeda
NTT DATA CORPORATION
