Обсуждение: BTREE_BUILD_STATS build is broken
The attached patch fixes the BTREE_BUILD_STATS build. Looks like 65c5fcd353a859da9e61bfb2b92a99f12937de3b broke this. That commit was made back in January, so no backpatch is required. -- Peter Geoghegan
Вложения
Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes: > The attached patch fixes the BTREE_BUILD_STATS build. Looks like > 65c5fcd353a859da9e61bfb2b92a99f12937de3b broke this. That commit was > made back in January, so no backpatch is required. Pushed, thanks. regards, tom lane
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Pushed, thanks. Thanks. If BTREE_BUILD_STATS needs a "tcopprot.h pgrminclude ignore" within nbtree.c, then ISTM that the similar include directive within nbtsort.c ought to receive the same treatment. -- Peter Geoghegan
Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes: > If BTREE_BUILD_STATS needs a "tcopprot.h pgrminclude ignore" within > nbtree.c, then ISTM that the similar include directive within > nbtsort.c ought to receive the same treatment. Does it appear to compile without that? (More generally, is there a better answer for that problem?) regards, tom lane
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Does it appear to compile without that? It does. The only thing that's absent is the pgrminclude directive, which is of course just a C comment. > (More generally, is there a better answer for that problem?) My unpublished parallel B-Tree index build patch will move everything to do with index builds into nbtsort.c. So, I will more than likely eventually propose that everything in question live there. I think that's a better approach in general, because the current high-level coordination from nbtree.c (e.g. how spools are initialized there) seems a little contrived. A single entry point for nbtsort.c works better. Short term, I guess the best solution is to just have a pgrminclude directive in both files. -- Peter Geoghegan
Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes: > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> (More generally, is there a better answer for that problem?) > My unpublished parallel B-Tree index build patch will move everything > to do with index builds into nbtsort.c. Yeah, I was kind of wondering why tcopprot.h had anything to do with sorting or indexing behavior at all. It seems like relocating the declarations would be a better long-term answer. > Short term, I guess the best solution is to just have a pgrminclude > directive in both files. If we're intending to get rid of the dependency, I won't bother with adding the other directive. I don't believe there are any near-term plans to run pgrminclude. regards, tom lane