From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Mike Palmiotto <mike(dot)palmiotto(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql |
Date: | 2017-04-05 14:45:06 |
Message-ID: | 7761.1491403506@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-04-05 09:43:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I was just thinking about that. The core problem though is that
>> we need the "bool" fields in the system catalog structs (or anyplace
>> else that it represents an on-disk bool datum) to be understood as
>> being 1 byte wide. I do not think we can assume that that's true of
>> every compiler's _Bool type. So we'd need some workaround for that.
>> There are probably other places such as isnull arrays where it'd be
>> wise to force the width to be 1 byte.
> I wonder if there's any compiler that has _Bool/stdbool.h where it's not
> 1 byte sized. It's definitely not guaranteed by the standard.
Hm. I'd supposed that it'd be pretty common to make _Bool be int-sized.
If it is char-sized almost everywhere, we could create a policy of
using stdbool.h unless configure sees that _Bool is not char-sized.
OTOH, that doesn't improve our existing situation that we have
platform-dependent semantics around "bool" (eg, what happens when
a non-char-sized value is assigned). It would just change which
one is the majority case, and not in a very safe direction :-(
>> In any case, that's a research project that's not getting done for v10.
> Agreed.
Yeah, it's off-topic for right now.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-04-05 14:45:21 | Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-04-05 14:44:40 | Re: Parallel Append implementation |