| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, 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: | 2018-12-28 16:47:25 |
| Message-ID: | 30574.1546015645@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> I looked at
>> https://github.com/postgrespro/pg_wait_sampling/blob/master/pg_wait_sampling.c
>> https://github.com/citusdata/citus/search?q=pgproc&unscoped_q=pgproc
>> and skimmed a few others can't find any instance where the full struct
>> is used, as opposed to just a pointer to it.
> No, the point Michael is making is that the array stride in the ProcArray
> is part of our ABI. For example, accessing a PGPROC from its pgprocno
> using the GetPGProcByNumber macro will be broken if we change the
> struct size. I do not think you can assume that no extension does that.
In fact, there's a counterexample right here in pg_wait_sampling:
https://github.com/postgrespro/pg_wait_sampling/blob/master/pg_wait_sampling.c#L343
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-28 17:29:52 | Re: random() (was Re: New GUC to sample log queries) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-28 16:44:30 | Re: add_partial_path() may remove dominated path but still in use |