On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 10:45:50AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 4:26 PM Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 08:39:58PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 7:28 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 8:25 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I'll take care of this today. I think we can mark the new function
> > > > > get_column_offset() being introduced by this patch as parallel safe.
> > > >
> > > > Pushed.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> >
> > I took a closer look at the test case. The "get_column_offset(coltypes) %
> > 8"
> > part would have caught the problem only when run on an ALIGNOF_DOUBLE==4
> > platform. Instead of testing the start of the typalign='d' column, let's
> > test
> > the first offset beyond the previous column. The difference between those
> > two
> > values depends on ALIGNOF_DOUBLE.
>
> Yes, but it could be false positives in some cases. For instance, the
> column {oid, bool, XLogRecPtr} should be okay on ALIGNOF_DOUBLE == 4
> and 8 platforms but the new test fails.
I'm happy with that, because the affected author should look for padding-free
layouts before settling on your example layout. If the padding-free layouts
are all unacceptable, the author should update the expected sanity_check.out
to show the one row where the test "fails".
