Re: [HACKERS] object_classes array is broken, again

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> What about adding StaticAsserts that lengthof() the relevant constant
>> arrays is equal to MAX_OCLASS? (Or other similar ways of checking
>> that they have the right number of entries.)

> Well, the array itself is declared like this:
> static const Oid object_classes[MAX_OCLASS] = {
> so testing lengthof() of it is useless because it's a constant and the
> assertion always holds. If it were declared like this instead:
> static const Oid object_classes[] = {
> then we could use lengthof().

Ah. I think the point of using MAX_OCLASS there was to get a warning
if the array was too short, but evidently it doesn't work like that.

> I don't see any drawwbacks to that.

+1 to this patch, in fact I think we could remove MAX_OCLASS altogether
which would be very nice for switch purposes.

Are there any other arrays that need such tests?

regards, tom lane