Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Alignment padding bytes in arrays vs the planner

From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Alignment padding bytes in arrays vs the planner
Date: 2011-04-27 01:42:24
Message-ID: 5c7d65da4db6b473c644173d013b41c6@biglumber.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160


> Any ideas about better answers?

Seems like you covered it - anything other than memcmp() is going 
to require a lot of brainz and have lots of sharp edges.

> But this example shows that we'd really have to enforce the rule 
> of "no ill-defined bytes" for just about every user-callable 
> function's results, which is a pretty ugly prospect.

Why is that so ugly? Seems the most logical route. And even if 
we don't get all of them right away (e.g. not 'enforced' right 
away), we're no worse off than we are now, but we don't have to 
dive into retraining equal() or touch any other parts of the code.

- -- 
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201104262139
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAk23dGEACgkQvJuQZxSWSsidwQCgrIc1I85P6a1jF5Xwq1vRbzwF
v/wAoImYBZZo930+IGgL61BEQ+1YCMaN
=9fkS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2011-04-27 02:11:33
Subject: Re: branching for 9.2devel
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-04-26 23:39:49
Subject: Re: branching for 9.2devel

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group