Re: Use of SizeOfIptrData - is that obsolete?

From: Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Use of SizeOfIptrData - is that obsolete?
Date: 2016-09-26 03:50:43
Message-ID: CABOikdNYZyPFZr3NFBEFRVdWfK0+Dus8yBdJbx6xC5TbzYBaiw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

>
> I thought removing the comment altogether was not appropriate, because
> it remains true that you want to work really hard to ensure that
> sizeof(ItemPointerData) is 6. We're just giving up on pretense of support
> for compilers that don't believe that

Makes sense.

> . I'm half tempted to introduce a
> StaticAssert about it, but refrained for the moment.
>
>
I also thought about that and it probably makes sense, at least to see how
buildfarm behaves. One reason to do so is that I did not find any
discussion or evidence of why SizeOfIptrData magic is no longer necessary
and to see if it was an unintentional change at some point.

> > While htup.h refactoring happened in 9.5, I don't see any point in back
> > patching this.
>
> Agreed. Pushed to HEAD only.
>

Thanks.

Thanks,
Pavan

--
Pavan Deolasee http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rushabh Lathia 2016-09-26 04:10:41 Re: PoC: Make it possible to disallow WHERE-less UPDATE and DELETE
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2016-09-26 03:42:04 Re: Possibly too stringent Assert() in b-tree code