Re: PgStat_HashKey padding issue when passed by reference
От | Ranier Vilela |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PgStat_HashKey padding issue when passed by reference |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEudQAqjwmrfH+BDpFLGTJBGwQ5zO95PtRzf3KeXz9KeUOYLUg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PgStat_HashKey padding issue when passed by reference (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Em qua., 10 de set. de 2025 às 23:53, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> escreveu:
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.
Currently no compiler guarantees that static initialization will fill possible holes,
something that *memset* guarantees.
I think this change is unsafe.
best regards,
Ranier Vilela
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: