I wrote:
> It occurs to me that, rather than trying to improve the struct definition
> methodology, maybe we should just add static asserts to catch any
> inconsistency here. It wouldn't be that hard:
> #define PGSTAT_MAX_MSG_SIZE 1000
> #define PGSTAT_MSG_PAYLOAD (PGSTAT_MAX_MSG_SIZE - sizeof(PgStat_MsgHdr))
> ... all else in pgstat.h as before ...
> StaticAssertStmt(sizeof(PgStat_MsgTabstat) <= PGSTAT_MAX_MSG_SIZE,
> 'bad PgStat_MsgTabstat size');
> ... and similarly for other pgstat message structs ...
After further thought it seems to me that this is a desirable approach,
because it is a direct check of the property we want, and will complain
about *any* mistake that results in too-large struct sizes. The other
ideas that were kicked around upthread still left a lot of ways to mess up
the array size calculations, for instance referencing the wrong array
element type in the sizeof calculation. So unless anyone has a concrete
objection, I'll go put in something like this along with Mark's fix.
regards, tom lane