Qingqing Zhou wrote:
"Mark Kirkwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
In two of the sections covered by #ifdef WAL_DEBUG there are declarations
like:
charbuf[8192];
Those two 8192 have nothing to do with BLCKSZ, it is just an arbitrary
buffer size as long as it is big enough to hold deb
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>
> Would it make sense to abstract that out so it's clear that it's
> *not* related to BLCKSZ? Or maybe just a comment would be enough.
>
"Insprite of incremental improvement", I think rename "buf" to "str" would
work,
Regards,
Qingqing
On Nov 22, 2005, at 11:44 , Qingqing Zhou wrote:
"Mark Kirkwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
In two of the sections covered by #ifdef WAL_DEBUG there are
declarations
like:
charbuf[8192];
Those two 8192 have nothing to do with BLCKSZ, it is just an arbitrary
buffer size as long as
"Mark Kirkwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> In two of the sections covered by #ifdef WAL_DEBUG there are declarations
> like:
>
> charbuf[8192];
>
> It seems to me that these should be:
>
> charbuf[BLCKSZ];
>
Those two 8192 have nothing to do with BLCKSZ, it is just an arbitrary
In two of the sections covered by #ifdef WAL_DEBUG there are
declarations like:
charbuf[8192];
It seems to me that these should be:
charbuf[BLCKSZ];
- or have I misunderstood what is going on here?
I realize that it's probably not terribly significant, as most people
will do
