From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Tsunakawa, Takayuki <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: removal of dangling temp tables
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 00:05:34 -0300
Message-ID: <201812280305.7us3unrlehxu@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181227225654.GA2196@paquier.xyz>
On 2018-Dec-28, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 04:30:21PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > We allow structs to receive new members at the end of the struct, since
> > this doesn't affect the offset of existing members; thus code already
> > compiled with the previous struct definition does not break. AFAICS
> > there is no danger in backpatching that, moving that struct member at
> > the end of the struct.
>
> Sure. Now this comes to PGPROC, which I am not sure we can say is
> never manipulated as an array.
The server code allocates arrays, but that's fine because that code is
recompiled. Extensions only pass pointers around -- they don't create
any additional arrays.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, michael@paquier.xyz, tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: removal of dangling temp tables
In-Reply-To: <201812280305.7us3unrlehxu@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox