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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to