Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 6:14 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> However, now that I've corrected that mistaken image ... I wonder if
>> it could make sense to redefine relptr as self-relative? That ought
>> to provide some notational savings since you'd only need to carry
>> around the relptr's own address not that plus a base address.
>> Probably not something to consider for v15 though.
> I think that would be pretty hard to make work, since copying around a
> relative pointer would change its meaning. Code like "relptr_foo x =
> *y" would be broken, for example, but the compiler would not complain.
Sure, but the current definition is far from error-proof as well:
nothing stops you from using the wrong base address with a relptr's
value. Anyway, it's just idle speculation at this point.
regards, tom lane