| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Piotr Stefaniak <postgres(at)piotr-stefaniak(dot)me>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix misaligned access of ItemPointerData on ARM |
| Date: | 2015-05-21 20:49:27 |
| Message-ID: | 3345.1432241367@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 05/21/2015 04:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wonder whether we should drop the ARM assumption and instead write
>>
>> #if defined(pg_attribute_packed) && defined(pg_attribute_aligned)
>> pg_attribute_packed()
>> pg_attribute_aligned(2)
>> #endif
>>
>> so that the annotations are applied on every compiler that accepts them.
> Sounds reasonable.
We can try it and see if the buildfarm blows up, at least.
I considered also adding a Static_assert about sizeof(ItemIdData),
but I'm afraid that compilers that don't support these pragmas
probably don't support Static_assert either, so it's not clear
that that would catch anything.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2015-05-21 20:50:43 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE with _any_ constraint |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-05-21 20:42:26 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE with _any_ constraint |