From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ildar Musin <i(dot)musin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: IndexTupleDSize macro seems redundant |
Date: | 2018-01-11 18:45:06 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob9dOFWN2qrhB_HxY4szv1KKNjvY1KfPC7esyMq__TvDQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 1:26 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I certainly hadn't been thinking about that. I didn't see any
>> issues in my testing (where I created a table with a btree index and
>> insert'd a bunch of records into and then killed the server, forcing WAL
>> replay and then checked that the index appeared to be valid using order
>> by queries; perhaps I should have tried amcheck, but doesn't sound like
>> this is something that would have been guaranteed to break anyway).
>
> You wouldn't see a problem, unless you tested on alignment-picky
> hardware, ie, not Intel.
>
> I wonder whether there is a way to get alignment traps on Intel-type
> hardware. It's getting less and less likely that most hackers are
> developing on anything else, so that we don't see gotchas of this
> type until code hits the buildfarm (and even then, only if the case
> is actually exercised in regression testing).
-fsanitize=alignment?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-01-11 18:52:07 | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-01-11 18:41:27 | Re: refactor subscription tests to use PostgresNode's wait_for_catchup |