From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>,
        pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Ensuring hash tuples are properly maxaligned
In-reply-to: <20180103014355.52an4fgwigdzhzxh@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <14483.1514938129@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20180103010931.6vsirlb5pdapdroq@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <17454.1514942419@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAEepm=1oc+hY_Goh8onmLc1q3KjAFDSeZJ7Ea5wzUc30G4jKhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180103013300.cf4jermw5ksygm7l@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <18301.1514943650@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20180103014355.52an4fgwigdzhzxh@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Tue, 02 Jan 2018 17:43:55 -0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <18675.1514944157.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2018 20:49:17 -0500
Message-ID: <18676.1514944157@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-01-02 20:40:50 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> OK, then there's not a live bug, but I'm a bit tempted to get rid of
>> the data[] member anyway.  It's not clear to me now that keeping it
>> results in net cleaner code.  Thoughts?

> I like that plan. I don't think the data field buys us anything, and I
> personally in most cases find "fully manual" alignment code easier to
> reason about than fiddling with padding fields.

Agreed --- I'll go do that.

			regards, tom lane