| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ildar Musin <i(dot)musin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: IndexTupleDSize macro seems redundant |
| Date: | 2018-01-11 20:32:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20180111203250.GR2416@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings Tom, Robert, Ildar, all,
* Stephen Frost (sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net) wrote:
> That said, since it's not aligned, regardless of the what craziness the
> compiler might try to pull, we probably shouldn't go casting it
> to something that later hackers might think will be aligned, but we
> should add a comment to clarify that it's not aligned and that we can't
> act like it is.
Updated (combined) patch attached for review. I went through and looked
again to make sure there weren't any cases of making an unaligned
pointer to a struct and didn't see any, and I added some comments to
_bt_restore_page().
Thanks!
Stephen
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| remove-indextupledsize-v4.patch | text/x-diff | 14.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-01-11 21:04:12 | Re: unique indexes on partitioned tables |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-01-11 20:25:26 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |