Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

Em qui., 16 de set. de 2021 às 01:13, Fujii Masao < masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> escreveu: > > > On 2021/09/15 21:27, Ranier Vilela wrote: > > I found this in the commit log in the patch. I agree that these > patches > > are refactoring ones. But I'm thinking that it's worth doing >

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

On 2021/09/15 21:27, Ranier Vilela wrote: I found this in the commit log in the patch. I agree that these patches are refactoring ones. But I'm thinking that it's worth doing back-patch, to make future back-patching easy. Thought? Thanks for picking this. Pushed. Thanks!

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

Em qua., 15 de set. de 2021 às 01:08, Fujii Masao < masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> escreveu: > > > On 2021/09/11 12:21, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > > > > On 2021/07/23 20:07, Ranier Vilela wrote: > >> Em sex., 23 de jul. de 2021 às 07:02, Aleksander Alekseev < > aleksan...@timescale.com

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

On 2021/09/11 12:21, Fujii Masao wrote: On 2021/07/23 20:07, Ranier Vilela wrote: Em sex., 23 de jul. de 2021 às 07:02, Aleksander Alekseev mailto:aleksan...@timescale.com>> escreveu:     Hi hackers,     The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:    

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

On 2021/07/23 20:07, Ranier Vilela wrote: Em sex., 23 de jul. de 2021 às 07:02, Aleksander Alekseev mailto:aleksan...@timescale.com>> escreveu: Hi hackers, The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world:  tested, passed

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

Em sex., 23 de jul. de 2021 às 07:02, Aleksander Alekseev < aleksan...@timescale.com> escreveu: > Hi hackers, > > The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: >> make installcheck-world: tested, passed >> Implements feature: tested, passed >> Spec compliant:

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

Hi hackers, The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: > make installcheck-world: tested, passed > Implements feature: tested, passed > Spec compliant: tested, passed > Documentation:tested, passed > > The patch was tested on MacOS

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: tested, passed Documentation:tested, passed The patch was tested on MacOS against master `80ba4bb3`.

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

Em sex., 16 de jul. de 2021 às 09:41, Ranier Vilela escreveu: > Em sex., 16 de jul. de 2021 às 09:05, Aleksander Alekseev < > aleksan...@timescale.com> escreveu: > >> Hi Rainer, >> >> > Here are the two patches. >> > As suggested, reclassified as refactoring only. >> >> Please don't change the

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

Em sex., 16 de jul. de 2021 às 09:05, Aleksander Alekseev < aleksan...@timescale.com> escreveu: > Hi Rainer, > > > Here are the two patches. > > As suggested, reclassified as refactoring only. > > Please don't change the status of the patch on CF application before > it was reviewed. It will only

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

Hi Rainer, > Here are the two patches. > As suggested, reclassified as refactoring only. Please don't change the status of the patch on CF application before it was reviewed. It will only slow things down. Your patch seems to have some problems on FreeBSD. Please see

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

Em qui., 15 de jul. de 2021 às 10:04, Ranier Vilela escreveu: > Em qui., 15 de jul. de 2021 às 10:01, Aleksander Alekseev < > aleksan...@timescale.com> escreveu: > >> Thanks, David. >> >> > I lost where. Can you show me? >> >> See the attached warnings.txt. >> > Thank you. > > >> >> > But the

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

Em qui., 15 de jul. de 2021 às 10:01, Aleksander Alekseev < aleksan...@timescale.com> escreveu: > Thanks, David. > > > I lost where. Can you show me? > > See the attached warnings.txt. > Thank you. > > > But the benchmark came from: > > pgbench -i -p 5432 -d postgres > > pgbench -c 50 -T 300 -S

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

Thanks, David. > I lost where. Can you show me? See the attached warnings.txt. > But the benchmark came from: > pgbench -i -p 5432 -d postgres > pgbench -c 50 -T 300 -S -n I'm afraid this tells nothing unless you also provide the configuration files and the hardware description, and also some

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

Em qui., 15 de jul. de 2021 às 09:45, David Rowley escreveu: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 23:38, Aleksander Alekseev > wrote: > > I'm updating the status to "Ready for Committer". > > I think that might be a bit premature. I can't quite see how changing > the pids List to a const List makes any

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 23:38, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > I'm updating the status to "Ready for Committer". I think that might be a bit premature. I can't quite see how changing the pids List to a const List makes any sense, especially when the code goes and calls lappend_int() on it to assign

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

Em qui., 15 de jul. de 2021 às 08:38, Aleksander Alekseev < aleksan...@timescale.com> escreveu: > Hi hackers, > > >> Patch attached. > > Added to next CF (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/33/3169/) > > Hi Aleksander, thanks for taking a look at this. > The proposed code casts `const` variables

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

Hi hackers, >> Patch attached. > Added to next CF (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/33/3169/) The proposed code casts `const` variables to non-`const`. I'm surprised MSVC misses it. Also, there were some issues with the code formatting. The corrected patch is attached. The patch is listed

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

Em seg., 14 de jun. de 2021 às 21:01, Ranier Vilela escreveu: > I took it a step further. > > Transactions > > HEAD patched > 1000220710586781 > 1014616710388685 > 100489191059 > 10065764,333 10436275

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

I took it a step further. Transactions HEAD patched 1000220710586781 1014616710388685 100489191059 10065764,333 10436275 3,55021946687555 TPS HEAD patched 33469,016009

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

Em dom., 13 de jun. de 2021 às 09:43, Ranier Vilela escreveu: > Hi Andres, thanks for taking a look. > > Em sáb., 12 de jun. de 2021 às 16:27, Andres Freund > escreveu: > >> Hi, >> >> On 2021-06-12 10:55:22 -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote: >> > With the recent changes at procarray.c, I take a look

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

Hi Andres, thanks for taking a look. Em sáb., 12 de jun. de 2021 às 16:27, Andres Freund escreveu: > Hi, > > On 2021-06-12 10:55:22 -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote: > > With the recent changes at procarray.c, I take a look in. > > msvc compiler, has some warnings about signed vs unsigned. > > > 1.

Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

Hi, On 2021-06-12 10:55:22 -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote: > With the recent changes at procarray.c, I take a look in. > msvc compiler, has some warnings about signed vs unsigned. > 1. Size_t is weird, because all types are int. Not sure why I ended up using size_t here. There are cases where using

Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

Hi, With the recent changes at procarray.c, I take a look in. msvc compiler, has some warnings about signed vs unsigned. So. 1. Size_t is weird, because all types are int. 2. Wouldn't it be better to initialize static variables? 3. There are some shadowing parameters. 4. Possible loop beyond