Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux)
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobfSmKXEgJmf6qxLXygFLV1C5C5Ao_xJGpznkAX4TGWLA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux)  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:04 PM Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> My reasoning for choosing bms_join() is that it cannot fail, assuming
> the heap is not corrupted.  It simply ORs the two bit-strings into
> whichever is the longer input string, and frees the shorter input
> string.  (In an earlier version I used bms_union(), this function's
> non-destructive sibling, but then realised that it could fail to
> allocate() causing us to lose track of a 1 bit).

Oh, OK.  I was assuming it was allocating.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux)
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY