On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 01:55:55PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On February 19, 2016 2:42:08 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Lane
> > wrote:
> >>> I think we should fix it, but not backpatch.
> >>
> >>I don't think that's particularly good policy. It's
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On February 19, 2016 2:42:08 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Lane
> wrote:
>>> I think we should fix it, but not backpatch.
>>
>>I don't think that's particularly good policy. It's a clear bug, why
>>would we not fix it? Leaving it as-is in the back br
Hi,
Nice catch!
On February 19, 2016 2:42:08 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think we should fix it, but not backpatch.
>
>I don't think that's particularly good policy. It's a clear bug, why
>would we not fix it? Leaving it as-is in the back branches can have
>no good effect, and what it d
Simon Riggs writes:
> I see the problem, but I don't buy the argument that it wastes large
> amounts of memory. Or do you have some evidence that it does?
Agreed, it seems unlikely that that hash table gets large enough for
this to be really significant. Still ...
> I think we should fix it, bu
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Simon Riggs
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 6:24 PM
> To: Horikawa Takashi(堀川 隆)
> Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Typo in bufmgr.c that result in waste of memory
>
On 19 February 2016 at 02:58, Takashi Horikawa
wrote:
> I have just found a typo in the source code (not in a comment) of bufmgr.c
> that result in waste of memory. It might be a 'bug' but it does not result
> in any incorrect operation but just results in waste of a few memory
> resource.
>
> A
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Takashi Horikawa
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have just found a typo in the source code (not in a comment) of bufmgr.c
> that result in waste of memory. It might be a 'bug' but it does not result
> in any incorrect operation but just results in waste of a few memory
>
Hi all,
I have just found a typo in the source code (not in a comment) of bufmgr.c
that result in waste of memory. It might be a 'bug' but it does not result
in any incorrect operation but just results in waste of a few memory
resource.
As sizeof(PrivateRefCountArray) found in InitBufferPoolAcces