| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size |
| Date: | 2023-02-22 21:34:44 |
| Message-ID: | 295606.1677101684@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> Maybe it's worth sticking a StaticAssert() for the struct size
>> somewhere.
> Indeed. I thought we had one already.
>> I'm a bit wary about that being too noisy, there are some machines with
>> odd alignment requirements. Perhaps worth restricting the assertion to
>> x86-64 + armv8 or such?
> I'd put it in first and only reconsider if it shows unfixable problems.
Now that we've got the sizeof(ExprEvalStep) under control, shouldn't
we do the attached?
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| check-sizeof-ExprEvalStep.patch | text/x-diff | 507 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-02-22 21:38:51 | Re: Improving inferred query column names |
| Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2023-02-22 21:32:53 | Re: Option to not use ringbuffer in VACUUM, using it in failsafe mode |