Re: Portability issues in shm_mq

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Portability issues in shm_mq
Date: 2014-03-18 15:29:41
Message-ID: CA+TgmobppcVeeUQHtv4u83ey-LzXE0-yhWD5CG8m11igA5HCgg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The thing I kind of like about this approach is that it makes the code
>> fully independent of the relationship between MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF and
>> sizeof(Size).
>
> Yeah. If it's not costing us much to support both cases, let's do so.

OK, committed as posted.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2014-03-18 15:36:17 Re: pg_archivecleanup bug
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2014-03-18 15:22:53 Re: Minimum supported version of Python?