Re: Packed short varlenas, what next?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Packed short varlenas, what next? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 25571.1172641497@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Packed short varlenas, what next? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Packed short varlenas, what next?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote: > Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> I'm really curious to know how people feel about the varlena patch. > One thing I think we could do immediately is apply the change to replace > "VARATT_SIZEP(x) = len" with "SET_VARSIZE(x, len)" --- that would > considerably reduce the size of the patch and allow people to focus on > the important changes instead of underbrush. Barring objection I'll go > ahead and do that today. I've committed this, but in testing with a hack that does ntohl() in the VARSIZE macro and vice-versa in SET_VARSIZE, I find that core passes regression but several contrib modules do not. It looks like the contrib modules were depending on various random structs being compatible with varlena, while not exposing that dependence in ways that either of us caught :-(. I'll work on cleaning up the remaining mess tomorrow, but I think that we may need to think twice about whether it's OK to expect that every datatype with typlen = -1 will be compatible with the New Rules. I'm back to wondering if maybe only types with typalign 'c' should get caught up in the changes. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: