Use of 8192 as BLCKSZ in xlog.c
In two of the sections covered by #ifdef WAL_DEBUG there are
declarations like:
char buf[8192];
It seems to me that these should be:
char buf[BLCKSZ];
- or have I misunderstood what is going on here?
I realize that it's probably not terribly significant, as most people
will do development with BLCKSZ=8192 anyway - I'm just trying to
understand the code ... :-).
regards
Mark
"Mark Kirkwood" <markir@paradise.net.nz> wrote
In two of the sections covered by #ifdef WAL_DEBUG there are declarations
like:char buf[8192];
It seems to me that these should be:
char buf[BLCKSZ];
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 debug information.
Regards,
Qingqing
On Nov 22, 2005, at 11:44 , Qingqing Zhou wrote:
"Mark Kirkwood" <markir@paradise.net.nz> wrote
In two of the sections covered by #ifdef WAL_DEBUG there are
declarations
like:char buf[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 debug information.
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.
Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com
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
Qingqing Zhou wrote:
"Mark Kirkwood" <markir@paradise.net.nz> wrote
In two of the sections covered by #ifdef WAL_DEBUG there are declarations
like:char buf[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 debug information.
Thanks - of course, different sort of buffer!
It is a bit more obvious now that I'm running with WAL_DEBUG enabled,
and can see that nature of the output. As has been suggested, maybe a
comment about the size and nature of 'buf' might be a nice addition.
cheers
Mark