| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: removal of dangling temp tables |
| Date: | 2018-12-27 22:56:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20181227225654.GA2196@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 04:30:21PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> We allow structs to receive new members at the end of the struct, since
> this doesn't affect the offset of existing members; thus code already
> compiled with the previous struct definition does not break. AFAICS
> there is no danger in backpatching that, moving that struct member at
> the end of the struct.
Sure. Now this comes to PGPROC, which I am not sure we can say is
never manipulated as an array.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-27 23:00:02 | Re: random() (was Re: New GUC to sample log queries) |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2018-12-27 22:15:55 | Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables) |