On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > Besides, what I propose to do is really exactly the same as what you > also want to do, except it avoids actually changing state->maxTapes. > We'd just pass down what you propose to assign to state->maxTapes > directly, which differs (and not just in the common case where there > are inactive tapes -- it's always at least off-by-one). Right?
What I mean is that you should pass down numTapes alongside numInputTapes. The function init_tape_buffers() could either have an additional argument (numTapes), or derive numTapes itself. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers