On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 7:21 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >
> In this version, I also removed the struct padding, changed the limit > on the number of entries to a nice round 64, and made some comment > updates. I considered trying to go further and actually make the file > variable-size, so that we never again need to worry about the limit on > the number of entries, but I don't actually think that's a good idea. > It would require substantially more changes to the code in this file, > and that means there's more risk of introducing bugs, and I don't see > that there's much value anyway, because if we ever do hit the current > limit, we can just raise the limit. > > If we were going to split up durable_rename(), the only intelligible > split I can see would be to have a second version of the function, or > a flag to the existing function, that caters to the situation where > the old file is already known to have been fsync()'d. The patch looks good except one minor comment + * corruption. Since the file might be more tha none standard-size disk + * sector in size, we cannot rely on overwrite-in-place. Instead, we generate typo "more tha none" -> "more than one" -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
