Re: [HACKERS] acl problem in NetBSD/m68k

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] acl problem in NetBSD/m68k
Date: 1999-07-08 13:56:38
Message-ID: 28866.931442198@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Did we ever fix this?

We agreed what to do: add padding field(s) to struct AclItem and
add an Assert() somewhere that would check that sizeof(AclItem) is 8,
while leaving the bulk of the code using sizeof(AclItem) rather than
a #define constant.

But it doesn't look like it got done yet.

regards, tom lane

>>>>> grant/revoke does not work in NetBSD/m68k. This is due to the wrong
>>>>> assumption that sizeof(AclItem) is equal to 8 in all platforms. I am
>>>>> going to fix this by replacing all occurrence of sizeof(AclItem) to
>>>>> ACLITEM_SIZE (newly defined as 8 in catalog/pg_type.h). See included
>>>>> patches. If there's no objection, I will commit them. Comments?
>>>>
>>>> I do not like this patch at *all*. Why is sizeof(AclItem) not the
>>>> correct thing to use?
>>
>> In NetBSD/m68k sizeof(AclItem) = 6, not 8.
>>
>>>> Replacing it with a hardwired "8" seems like
>>>> a step backwards --- not to mention a direct contradiction of what
>>>> you claim the patch is doing.
>>
>> It's already hard wired in pg_type.h, isn't it.
>>
>>>> Perhaps the real problem is that the AclItem struct definition needs
>>>> modification? Or maybe we need a way to put a machine-dependent size
>>>> into the pg_type entry for type aclitem? The latter seems like a
>>>> good thing to be able to do on general principles.
>>
>> Glad to hear you have better idea. Anyway, NetBSD/m68k users need some
>> way to fix the problem now, since the problem seems very serious.
>> --
>> Tatsuo Ishii

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1999-07-08 14:40:45 Re: [HACKERS] PATCH for pgconnection.h
Previous Message Jan Wieck 1999-07-08 12:39:41 Re: [HACKERS] Delaying insertion of default values