Mark Dilger writes:
>> This means that the const variable 'const_zero' contains a pointer that is
>> non-const, pointing at something that is static const, stored in read only
>> memory. Yikes.
> I still believe this is unsafe.
I'm with Andres: I don't see the problem. It's true that we've cas
> This patch got committed as c1898c3e1e235ae35b4759d233253eff221b976a
> on Sun Sep 10 16:20:41 2017 -0700, but I've only just gotten around to
> reviewing it.
>
> I believe this is wrong and should be reverted, at least in part.
>
> The NumericVar struct has the field 'digits' as non-const:
>
On February 21, 2018 8:49:51 AM PST, Mark Dilger
wrote:
>
>The idea that set_var_from_var might be called on const_zero (or
>const_one,
>etc.) is not hypothetical. It is being done in numeric.c.
>
>If this is safe, somebody needs to be a lot clearer about why that is
>so. There
>are no commen
> On Sep 11, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Andres Freund writes:
>> One large user of unnecessary non-constant static variables is
>> numeric.c. More out of curiosity - numeric is slow enough in itself to
>> make inlining not a huge win - I converted it to use consts.
>
> LGTM.
>
>>
