Re: pg_control contents
От | Thomas Lockhart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_control contents |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3C9B5A83.F669E881@fourpalms.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | pg_control contents (Thomas Lockhart <thomas@fourpalms.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_control contents
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > I notice that the compile-time locale settings are registered in that > > same structure. And that they depend on NAMEDATALEN, > They do? That would be fairly broken if so; sizeof(ControlFileData) > has to be independent of configurable settings, else you'll not get as > far as inspecting any of its contents (because the CRC check will fail > if computed over the wrong number of bytes). But it looks to me like > LOCALE_NAME_BUFLEN is hardwired at 128. Ah. I should have looked before sending the mail; I was working on this several days ago... > Putting NAMEDATALEN into the struct does seem like a good idea, and > perhaps FUNC_MAX_ARGS as well, since the system catalogs will be > unreadable if these numbers are wrong. I think it's just an oversight > that we didn't put these values in pg_control to start with. OK, I'll add NAMEDATALEN, FUNC_MAX_ARGS, and LOCALE_NAME_BUFLEN. Any more? > Don't forget to bump PG_CONTROL_VERSION. I'd like to change this to the yyyymmddN format used in the catalog version number (it is currently an integer set to ~71). It should make it much easier to guess at code vintages from problem reports (if nothing else), right? - Thomas
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: