Thank you for the review.

On 10.02.2016 19:46, Teodor Sigaev wrote:

I duplicate the patch here.

it's very good thing to update disctionaries to support modern versions.
And thank you for improving documentation. Also I've impressed by long
description in spell.c header.

Som notices about code:

  struct SPELL. Why do you remove union p? You leave comment
  about using d struct instead of flag field and as can see
  it's right comment. It increases size of SPELL structure.

I will fix it. I had misunderstood the Alvaro's comment about it.

2 struct AFFIX. I'm agree with Alvaro taht sum of sizes of bit fields
should be less or equal to size of integer. In opposite case, suppose,
we can get undefined behavior. Please, split  bitfields  to two integers.

I will fix it. Here I had misunderstood too.

3 unsigned char flagval[65000];
   Is it forbidden to use 65555 number? In any case, decodeFlag() doesn't
   restrict return value. I suggest to enlarge array to 1<<16 and add limit
   to return value of decodeFlag().

I think it can be done.

  I'd like to see a short comment describing at least new functions

Now in spell.c there are more comments. I wanted to send fixed patch after adding all comments that I want to add. But I can send the patch now. Also I will merge this commit

  Pls, add tests for new code.

I will add.

Artur Zakirov
Postgres Professional:
Russian Postgres Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to