jitflags in _outPlannedStmt and _readPlannedStmt treated as bool type
The jitflags in the PlannedStmt structure of type "int", but in _out and
_read functions it is treated as of "bool" type.
WRITE_BOOL_FIELD(jitFlags);
READ_BOOL_FIELD(jitFlags);
I am thinking of it is a copy paste mistake as the other members around the
initflags are of "bool" type or is there any specific reason to treat as
"bool" type?
Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 9:04 AM, Haribabu Kommi
<kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote:
The jitflags in the PlannedStmt structure of type "int", but in _out and
_read functions it is treated as of "bool" type.WRITE_BOOL_FIELD(jitFlags);
READ_BOOL_FIELD(jitFlags);I am thinking of it is a copy paste mistake as the other members around the
initflags are of "bool" type or is there any specific reason to treat as
"bool" type?
No, I don't see any. Here's patch for the same.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
Attachments:
Use-READ-WRITE_INT_FIELD-macro-for-jitFlags.patchtext/x-patch; charset=US-ASCII; name=Use-READ-WRITE_INT_FIELD-macro-for-jitFlags.patchDownload+2-3
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 07:03:49PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 9:04 AM, Haribabu Kommi
I am thinking of it is a copy paste mistake as the other members around the
initflags are of "bool" type or is there any specific reason to treat as
"bool" type?No, I don't see any. Here's patch for the same.
The code is wrong, and you guys are right as well as the patch. I have
added an open item to keep track of this one.
--
Michael
Hi,
On 2018-04-26 13:34:44 +1000, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
The jitflags in the PlannedStmt structure of type "int", but in _out and
_read functions it is treated as of "bool" type.WRITE_BOOL_FIELD(jitFlags);
READ_BOOL_FIELD(jitFlags);I am thinking of it is a copy paste mistake as the other members around the
initflags are of "bool" type or is there any specific reason to treat as
"bool" type?
No, it's an oversight. It was a bool first and then morphed from
there... Will fix.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
On 2018-04-26 13:34:44 +1000, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
I am thinking of it is a copy paste mistake as the other members around the
initflags are of "bool" type or is there any specific reason to treat as
"bool" type?
No, it's an oversight. It was a bool first and then morphed from
there... Will fix.
I went ahead and pushed this, as I'm intentionally thrashing the
buildfarm this afternoon in hopes of getting dory to show a reattach
failure. (No luck so far :-()
regards, tom lane
On April 28, 2018 1:47:56 PM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
On 2018-04-26 13:34:44 +1000, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
I am thinking of it is a copy paste mistake as the other members
around the
initflags are of "bool" type or is there any specific reason to
treat as
"bool" type?
No, it's an oversight. It was a bool first and then morphed from
there... Will fix.I went ahead and pushed this, as I'm intentionally thrashing the
buildfarm this afternoon in hopes of getting dory to show a reattach
failure. (No luck so far :-()
Thanks.
Perhaps Steven could change dory's config so it rebuilds when idle? There's a setting for that...
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Greetings,
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 17:55 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
On April 28, 2018 1:47:56 PM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
On 2018-04-26 13:34:44 +1000, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
I am thinking of it is a copy paste mistake as the other members
around the
initflags are of "bool" type or is there any specific reason to
treat as
"bool" type?
No, it's an oversight. It was a bool first and then morphed from
there... Will fix.I went ahead and pushed this, as I'm intentionally thrashing the
buildfarm this afternoon in hopes of getting dory to show a reattach
failure. (No luck so far :-()Thanks.
Perhaps Steven could change dory's config so it rebuilds when idle?
There's a setting for that...
Not at a sufficiently capable keyboard at the moment to do that, so I’ve
passed the ask on to someone else who can hopefully help. :)
Thanks!
Stephen
Show quoted text
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 17:55 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
Perhaps Steven could change dory's config so it rebuilds when idle?
There's a setting for that...
Not at a sufficiently capable keyboard at the moment to do that, so I’ve
passed the ask on to someone else who can hopefully help. :)
Actually, I was about to ask whether you guys had changed anything about
dory's configuration recently. It's now had eight consecutive passes
since I put in 63ca350 last night. Given its record before that, just
about one failure in every three tries, the odds of that are less than 4%
if I'm counting on my fingers correctly. So I'm wondering what changed;
and more change might not be what we want.
regards, tom lane
Greetings,
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 18:23 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 17:55 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
Perhaps Steven could change dory's config so it rebuilds when idle?
There's a setting for that...Not at a sufficiently capable keyboard at the moment to do that, so I’ve
passed the ask on to someone else who can hopefully help. :)Actually, I was about to ask whether you guys had changed anything about
dory's configuration recently. It's now had eight consecutive passes
since I put in 63ca350 last night. Given its record before that, just
about one failure in every three tries, the odds of that are less than 4%
if I'm counting on my fingers correctly. So I'm wondering what changed;
and more change might not be what we want.
I’m not aware of any change today. I’ve asked when the last change was
made.
Thanks!
Stephen
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 18:23 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Actually, I was about to ask whether you guys had changed anything about
dory's configuration recently. It's now had eight consecutive passes
since I put in 63ca350 last night. Given its record before that, just
about one failure in every three tries, the odds of that are less than 4%
if I'm counting on my fingers correctly. So I'm wondering what changed;
and more change might not be what we want.
I’m not aware of any change today. I’ve asked when the last change was
made.
If in fact nothing's been changed, then the run of successes is probably
just rotten luck. (Either that or it's a Heisenbug, and the addition
of a VirtualQuery call made it go away. Ugh.) In that case I'm on board
with putting it into a continuous-rebuild loop till we get some failures.
regards, tom lane