| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PgStat_HashKey padding issue when passed by reference |
| Date: | 2025-09-11 02:53:24 |
| Message-ID: | aMI5pF80G9EnRGBD@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 09:36:52PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> But my concern is the flexibility of this approach. If someone is to add an
> OID field next, they will not be able to as that will be introducing
> padding. On the other hand, passing the key by reference and
> documenting the reason in pgstat_shmem.c will not lose this
> flexibility.
I don't mind discarding the static assertion idea, but at the end what
counts for me here is that I don't want to sacrifice future changes in
the pgstats code that would always require passing around the hash key
by reference. So I would just do like attached, documenting at the
top of PgStat_HashKey that we should not have padding in it, removing
three memset(0) calls that expected it.
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Document-no-padding-rule-for-PgStat_HashKey.patch | text/x-diff | 2.8 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-09-11 03:12:52 | Re: [PATCH] Hex-coding optimizations using SVE on ARM. |
| Previous Message | jian he | 2025-09-11 02:49:39 | Re: someone else to do the list of acknowledgments |