Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edjmv-00037B-Oy for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:37:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edjmu-0004mO-Jz for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:37:56 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edjmu-0004mE-DC for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:37:56 +0000 Received: from tamriel.snowman.net ([2001:470:e38f::11]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1edjmr-0005Yr-A9 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:37:55 +0000 Received: by tamriel.snowman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 736FF5F79C; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:37:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:37:52 -0500 From: Stephen Frost To: Antonin Houska Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Oleg Ivanov Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: generic WAL compression Message-ID: <20180122213752.GV2416@tamriel.snowman.net> References: <59F90ABF.2060407@postgrespro.ru> <23990.1510853483@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zdTTObKWN0YszqeC" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <23990.1510853483@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk --zdTTObKWN0YszqeC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Oleg, I'm not really sure why this is still in Needs Review as a review was posted and I don't see any follow-up. I've changed this to be Waiting for Author. * Antonin Houska (ah@cybertec.at) wrote: > Oleg Ivanov wrote: >=20 > > In order to overcome that issue, I would like to propose the patch, whi= ch > > provides possibility to use another approach of the WAL record > > construction. >=20 > After having spent several hours reviewing this patch I dare to send the > following comments: Thanks for the review Antonin! > * writeToPtr() and readFromPtr() are applied to the existing code. I think > this is a reason for a separate diff, to be applied before the actual p= atch. I'm not really a fan of using these, for my 2c. I'm not sure how others feel, but having these macros which change one of the arguments to the macro (by advancing the pointer) doesn't result in a net improvement to readability for me. The other review comments also seem pretty reasonable to me. Thanks! Stephen --zdTTObKWN0YszqeC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJaZlmwAAoJEO1sijiDR2RVuy4P/23V2osh/9tGAioJ9Beef4F9 7g+e87hZeoT7oPsUV5/mnz+Sw2XqP59LvVSQ0dgkG8NuaLT5YfEGfKEq7/ipghQ+ hOnZauOzgsG+7BgIQGfe/jibjfAB8w5Ypp8S8RJJzbVpPrssCeNlUidot2tQmNY5 EGR2eHg1neo8/4VCh+EHXqHOtYqbOhaD6B7u1Hy9FAcluG9mcG2RHWTnC9ghE5vT X55LfybSpf0PJfcuSS+bS0gV40AWtGlpmIIZUlRJnmF8JHHR5XKFxvMXI/XiRfQf +fG0maAk4MaDZ9Adg7aEl2U4f3mMAAa42xqdv3JugtnQNVNlNjldagY8Qlk/uiBT CsX62FufKPwgykvsrMLDvmmeoftDoeZ07HX7mL9FaDgoHaAIhE7jtFzlM4HdsqhB jcqUMGP/Vf85ZFN/kSEFCvpXom/KxwCgafaExf9YUItLTBrc1mYLp8yHst4PlCps z4KEQCORYhx2raKBKh6vXp//UdAM2Tc3jRDlyiDSpU6sfRJFe20awCA6mby72h1m dGSNUtncaMPA+1ewKvb2QbcLarBxLjUMagE6FixDxbXtkKG5Y9OzsA13k5B1U6ZG ReEWl38qy/YDmy6cr2nu3txPKONd7vI75r5eq0RoPvE9lRUGauUfsdCQWRQnAEcg pwhoE1GRoE3/w8ggkWzK =GUEy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --zdTTObKWN0YszqeC--