From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Erik_Erkelens(at)yahoo(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Bug #652: NAMEDATALEN limitations |
Date: | 2002-04-30 18:45:53 |
Message-ID: | 21413.1020192353@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-sql |
I said:
> Although it's inefficient to declare NAMEDATALEN as not a multiple of 4
> (because of alignment considerations --- the space will just be wasted
> as pad bytes, so you might as well use it), I don't offhand know why it
> wouldn't work.
One possible theory is that if NAMEDATALEN isn't a multiple of
sizeof(int), the compiler's idea of sizeof(NameData) will probably be
NAMEDATALEN rounded up to the next multiple of sizeof(int). However,
I still don't see exactly how that breaks anything, with the possible
exception of pg_language tuple layout --- but pg_language layout
problems wouldn't give rise to a failure during bootstrap AFAICS.
So I still don't know what the constraint mechanism really is.
BTW, I'm assuming here that alignof(int) is 4 on your platform; is it?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-30 20:04:33 | Re: Bug #652: NAMEDATALEN limitations |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-30 18:32:57 | Re: Bug #652: NAMEDATALEN limitations |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-30 20:04:33 | Re: Bug #652: NAMEDATALEN limitations |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-30 18:32:57 | Re: Bug #652: NAMEDATALEN limitations |