| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg15b1: FailedAssertion("val > base", File: "...src/include/utils/relptr.h", Line: 67, PID: 30485) |
| Date: | 2022-05-31 22:39:23 |
| Message-ID: | 355850.1654036763@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 6:14 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> However, now that I've corrected that mistaken image ... I wonder if
>> it could make sense to redefine relptr as self-relative? That ought
>> to provide some notational savings since you'd only need to carry
>> around the relptr's own address not that plus a base address.
>> Probably not something to consider for v15 though.
> I think that would be pretty hard to make work, since copying around a
> relative pointer would change its meaning. Code like "relptr_foo x =
> *y" would be broken, for example, but the compiler would not complain.
Sure, but the current definition is far from error-proof as well:
nothing stops you from using the wrong base address with a relptr's
value. Anyway, it's just idle speculation at this point.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2022-06-01 00:16:23 | Re: PostgreSQL Limits: maximum number of columns in SELECT result |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-05-31 22:29:14 | Re: pg15b1: FailedAssertion("val > base", File: "...src/include/utils/relptr.h", Line: 67, PID: 30485) |