From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Nikita Glukhov <n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru>,
        Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
        David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep
 size
In-reply-to: <20220616233130.rparivafipt6doj3@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <20220616233130.rparivafipt6doj3@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:31:30 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1014295.1655422634.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 19:37:14 -0400
Message-ID: <1014296.1655422634@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1014296.1655422634%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> However, jsonexpr/EEOP_JSONEXPR is 296 bytes, and
> hashedscalararrayop/EEOP_HASHED_SCALARARRAYOP is 64 bytes, even though the
> limit is 40 bytes.

Oops.

> Maybe it's worth sticking a StaticAssert() for the struct size
> somewhere.

Indeed.  I thought we had one already.

> I'm a bit wary about that being too noisy, there are some machines with
> odd alignment requirements. Perhaps worth restricting the assertion to
> x86-64 + armv8 or such?

I'd put it in first and only reconsider if it shows unfixable problems.

			regards, tom lane