[HACKERS] Re: space reserved for WAL record does not match what was written: panic on windows

2013-10-18 Thread Noah Misch
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 09:05:38PM +1300, David Rowley wrote: > As for signed vs unsigned, I've not looked at all of the places where > MAXALIGN is used, but I just assumed it was for memory addresses, if this > is the case then I'm confused why we'd ever want a negative valued memory > address? T

[HACKERS] Re: space reserved for WAL record does not match what was written: panic on windows

2013-10-18 Thread David Rowley
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 03:23:30PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > >> On 2013-10-10 08:59:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Andres Freund > wrote: > >> >

[HACKERS] Re: space reserved for WAL record does not match what was written: panic on windows

2013-10-17 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-10-17 12:33:45 -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > > But if we're bent on minimizing the use of 64-bit arithmetic on 32-bit > > systems, then presumably I should instead go back and retrofit that > > patch to use Size rather than uint64 to represent the size of a > > segment. But then I have two co

[HACKERS] Re: space reserved for WAL record does not match what was written: panic on windows

2013-10-17 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> But if we're bent on minimizing the use of 64-bit arithmetic on 32-bit >> systems, then presumably I should instead go back and retrofit that >> patch to use Size rather than uint64 to represent the size of a >> segment. But then I have two c

[HACKERS] Re: space reserved for WAL record does not match what was written: panic on windows

2013-10-17 Thread Noah Misch
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 08:39:56AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 03:23:30PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > >> On 2013-10-10 08:59:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> > I'd be inclined to make the computation unconditionally

[HACKERS] Re: space reserved for WAL record does not match what was written: panic on windows

2013-10-17 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 03:23:30PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2013-10-10 08:59:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Andres Freund >> > wrote: >> > > Do you have a better alternative? Making the computation u

[HACKERS] Re: space reserved for WAL record does not match what was written: panic on windows

2013-10-10 Thread Noah Misch
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 03:23:30PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-10-10 08:59:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Andres Freund > > wrote: > > > Do you have a better alternative? Making the computation unconditionally > > > 64bit will have a runtime overhead an