public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Amit Langote <[email protected]>
To: Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>
Cc: Ibrar Ahmed <[email protected]>
Cc: Arne Roland <[email protected]>
Cc: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <[email protected]>
Cc: Rahila Syed <[email protected]>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?)
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 12:00:45 +0900
Message-ID: <CA+HiwqEEvVwdPmtUsBhBJRfg064V-_sP0DM35MVeDxbA0_iaBQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 7:15 AM Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2022-Jan-17, Tom Lane wrote:
> > But could we please do it in a way that is designed to keep the
> > code readable, rather than to minimize the number of lines of diff?
> > It makes zero sense to have the bits in AFTER_TRIGGER_TUP_BITS not
> > be adjacent. So what should happen here is to renumber the symbols
> > in between to move their bits over one place.
>
> Is it typical to enumerate bits starting from the right of each byte,
> when doing it from the high bits of the word? DONE and IN_PROGRESS have
> been defined as 0x1 and 0x2 of that byte for a very long time and I
> found that very strange. I am inclined to count from the left, so I'd
> pick 8 first, defining the set like this:
>
> #define AFTER_TRIGGER_OFFSET 0x07FFFFFF /* must be low-order bits */
> #define AFTER_TRIGGER_DONE 0x80000000
> #define AFTER_TRIGGER_IN_PROGRESS 0x40000000
> /* bits describing the size and tuple sources of this event */
> #define AFTER_TRIGGER_FDW_REUSE 0x00000000
> #define AFTER_TRIGGER_FDW_FETCH 0x20000000
> #define AFTER_TRIGGER_1CTID 0x10000000
> #define AFTER_TRIGGER_2CTID 0x30000000
> #define AFTER_TRIGGER_CP_UPDATE 0x08000000
> #define AFTER_TRIGGER_TUP_BITS 0x38000000
Agree that the ultimate code readability trumps diff minimalism. :-)
Would you like me to update the patch with the above renumbering or
are you working on a new version yourself?
--
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
view thread (7+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?)
In-Reply-To: <CA+HiwqEEvVwdPmtUsBhBJRfg064V-_sP0DM35MVeDxbA0_iaBQ@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox