Pushed a version (hopefully) fixing Tom's complaints. On 2015-01-28 13:52:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2015-01-28 13:38:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> #define BUFFERDESC_PADDED_SIZE (SIZEOF_VOID_P == 8 ? 64 : 32) > > > Hm, did you intentionally put a 32in there or was that just the logical > > continuation of 64? Because there's no way it'll ever fit into 32 bytes > > in the near future. That's why I had put the sizeof(BufferDesc) > > there. We could just make it 1 as well, to indicate that we don't want > > any padding... > > Yeah, 1 would be fine too. Maybe better to call it BUFFERDESC_MIN_SIZE, > because as this stands it's enforcing a min size not exact size.
It's _PAD_TO_SIZE now. > not going to whinge about that aspect of it; the main point here is to > put in the union and fix the ensuing notational fallout. We can worry > about exactly what size to pad to as a separate discussion.) Yea. The details can be changed in a concise way now. I hope ;) Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
