Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit hashjoins

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane)
Cc: riedel+(at)CMU(dot)EDU, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit hashjoins
Date: 1999-03-24 16:21:40
Message-ID: 199903241621.LAA09354@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> My guess is that either a struct field is being declared "long" when
> it really oughta be "int", or some part of the tuple storage routines
> is applying LONGALIGN() when it only oughta apply INTALIGN(). This
> is something that would be difficult to track down or verify without
> a box on which sizeof(int) != sizeof(long), so I haven't gone after it.
> If you have time, please leave memutils.h with the more reasonable
> looking definition of LONGALIGN() and go looking to find out which
> system table has the sizing conflict.

Yes. If you can tell us the column, by running initdb in debug mode
(somehow), I think we can figure out the problem.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Massimo Dal Zotto 1999-03-24 17:21:43 static oid
Previous Message Tom Lane 1999-03-24 16:16:22 Re: [HACKERS] backend unstable, \d broken, groups broken was CVS 3-22-99 \d broken?