Re: [HACKERS] Binary cursor header changed from 20 to 16 Bytes?

Tom Lane wrote:

> "G. Anthony Reina" <reina(at)nsi(dot)edu> writes:
> > The only thing that seems to have problems is when you select multiple
> > variables. For this case, you have to put all of your arrays at the
> > end.
>
> That doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. What happens if you
> don't?
>

It comes back as "gibberish". But we haven't really experimented with what
the gibberish is (e.g. alignment off, etc). Once we figured out the trick about
putting the arrays at the end, we stopped fooling with it. It would be a nice
little experiment since it appears that this kind of thing isn't frequently done.

Anyone else out there using a binary cursor between two different computer
architectures?

>
> > I don't need to offset by 16 bytes to get the 2nd and 3rd column (cycles and
> > time_instants); I only need to do this for the 1st column (repetition).
>

Sorry I misspoke but you interpretted correctly anyway. The 1st and 2nd columns
(just single ints) don't need the 16 byte offset, just the 3rd column (variable
array). We've tried this with both int and float variable arrays and it works
fine.

-Tony