"Qingqing Zhou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> There is a possible sequence like this:
> ALIGNOF_LONG 4
> ALIGNOF_DOUBLE 8
> MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF 8
> vs.
> ALIGNOF_LONG 8
> ALIGNOF_DOUBLE 8
> MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF 8
> So we should at least check ALIGNOF_LONG as well.
No, we don't need to, because we do not really care about ALIGNOF_LONG
per se. We don't use "long" as an on-disk datatype, precisely because
we don't know what size it is. We use int32 and int64. The former has
align 4 on all machines AFAIK, and the latter has MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF.
> There are some machines with sizeof(int) equals to 64, if my memory saves,
> which might imply that ALIGNOF_INT equals to 8.
If there were such a machine, Postgres wouldn't run on it anyway, and
a lot of other software too. There'd be no way to have both int16 and
int32 types ("short" could cover only one of them).
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
