Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2018-04-07 14:07:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> TRAP: UnalignedPointer("(((uintptr_t) ((uintptr_t)(ptr)) + ((sizeof(*ptr)) - >> 1)) & ~((uintptr_t) ((sizeof(*ptr)) - 1))) != (uintptr_t)(ptr)", File: >> "../../../src/include/port/atomics.h", Line: 177)
> Yea, I just saw that. > Afaict it's "just" an over-eager / wrong assert. I can't for the heck of > it think why I wrote (9.5 timeframe) > AssertPointerAlignment(ptr, sizeof(*ptr)); > where the bigger ones all have asserts alignment to their own size. I > assume I did because some platforms want to do atomics bigger than a > single int - but then I should've used sizeof(ptr->value). So far > pademelon is the only animal affected afaict - let me think about it for > a bit and come up with a patch, ok? I think I'd just drop those asserts altogether. The hardware is in charge of complaining about misaligned pointers. If you do insist on asserting something, it needs to be about ptr->sema; the bool value field isn't going to have any interesting alignment requirement, but the sema might. regards, tom lane