Re: IndexTupleDSize macro seems redundant
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Ildar Musin <i.musin@postgrespro.ru>,
Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-01-11T18:45:06Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 1:26 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I certainly hadn't been thinking about that. I didn't see any >> issues in my testing (where I created a table with a btree index and >> insert'd a bunch of records into and then killed the server, forcing WAL >> replay and then checked that the index appeared to be valid using order >> by queries; perhaps I should have tried amcheck, but doesn't sound like >> this is something that would have been guaranteed to break anyway). > > You wouldn't see a problem, unless you tested on alignment-picky > hardware, ie, not Intel. > > I wonder whether there is a way to get alignment traps on Intel-type > hardware. It's getting less and less likely that most hackers are > developing on anything else, so that we don't see gotchas of this > type until code hits the buildfarm (and even then, only if the case > is actually exercised in regression testing). -fsanitize=alignment? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Commits
-
Remove redundant IndexTupleDSize macro.
- d79e7e92bf2a 11.0 landed