| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: removal of dangling temp tables |
| Date: | 2018-12-28 03:05:34 |
| Message-ID: | 201812280305.7us3unrlehxu@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-Dec-28, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 04:30:21PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > We allow structs to receive new members at the end of the struct, since
> > this doesn't affect the offset of existing members; thus code already
> > compiled with the previous struct definition does not break. AFAICS
> > there is no danger in backpatching that, moving that struct member at
> > the end of the struct.
>
> Sure. Now this comes to PGPROC, which I am not sure we can say is
> never manipulated as an array.
The server code allocates arrays, but that's fine because that code is
recompiled. Extensions only pass pointers around -- they don't create
any additional arrays.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-12-28 03:34:01 | Re: Synchronous replay take III |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2018-12-28 02:43:44 | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |