Re: SerializeParamList vs machines with strict alignment

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: SerializeParamList vs machines with strict alignment
Date: 2018-10-03 02:59:04
Message-ID: CAA4eK1L2M1-4EyFKV6Ogopc=KDexg+SaTfOmZW2cF8YQYJV-EA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 12:25 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> Okay, I have pushed the test case patch on HEAD. Attached is the
> >> code-fix patch, let's wait for a day so that we have all the results
> >> which can help us to discuss the merits of this patch.
>
> > By now, the added test has failed on gharial [1] with below log on the server:
>
> Yeah, gharial and anole both don't like this, which is interesting
> but not really surprising, considering that IA64 is in some part
> an HPPA follow-on architecture.
>

Now chipmunk also failed for the same test.

> What I find more interesting is
> that both of the live Sparc critters are happy --- so despite
> Thomas' statements upthread, they're coping with unaligned accesses.
> Maybe you should have back-patched the test to older branches so
> we could see what castoroides and protosciurus would do. But it's
> probably not worth additional delay.
>

Agreed, I will push the code-fix on HEAD and code+test in back-branches.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-10-03 03:37:18 Re: partition tree inspection functions
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-10-03 02:07:06 Re: file cloning in pg_upgrade and CREATE DATABASE