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

  1. Remove redundant IndexTupleDSize macro.