I said:
> One possible theory is that if NAMEDATALEN isn't a multiple of
> sizeof(int), the compiler's idea of sizeof(NameData) will probably be
> NAMEDATALEN rounded up to the next multiple of sizeof(int).
For the record, this does indeed seem to be the root cause for Erik's
complaint. relcache
I said:
> Although it's inefficient to declare NAMEDATALEN as not a multiple of 4
> (because of alignment considerations --- the space will just be wasted
> as pad bytes, so you might as well use it), I don't offhand know why it
> wouldn't work.
One possible theory is that if NAMEDATALEN isn't a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> If NAMEDATALEN is given values of 45,61 initdb -d will fail with the error
>"relation pg_proc does not exist'.
Did you try to track down why?
Although it's inefficient to declare NAMEDATALEN as not a multiple of 4
(because of alignment considerations --- the space w
Erik Erkelens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 3
The lower the number the more severe it is.
Short Description
NAMEDATALEN limitations
Long Description
If NAMEDATALEN is given values of 45,61 initdb -d will fail with the error "relation
pg_proc does not exist'.
I'd appreci
