| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Dmitry Koval <d(dot)koval(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, andrewbille(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17385: "RESET transaction_isolation" inside serializable transaction causes Assert at the transaction end |
| Date: | 2022-09-26 10:59:47 |
| Message-ID: | 3334938.1664189987@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 12:16:24AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, but why? I see no good reason why those fields need to be first.
> My reasoning on these ones is that we are most likely going to add
> more description flags in the future than new unit types. Perhaps I
> am wrong.
Sure, but we could easily leave unused bits there. Aligning the
units subfields on byte boundaries might result in slightly better
machine code, anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Guo | 2022-09-26 11:42:05 | Re: BUG #17618: unnecessary filter column <> text even after adding index |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-09-26 09:54:59 | Re: BUG #17385: "RESET transaction_isolation" inside serializable transaction causes Assert at the transaction end |