On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:48 PM Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > Here's a more-verbose description of (2), with additions about what it does > and doesn't achieve: > > 2. On systems where double alignment differs from int64 alignment, require > NAMEDATALEN%8==0. Modify the test from commits 79b716c and c1da0ac to stop > treating "name" fields specially. The test will still fail for AIX > compatibility violations, but "name" columns no longer limit your field > position candidates like they do today (today == option (1)). Upgrading to > v16 would require dump/reload for AIX users changing NAMEDATALEN to conform > to the new restriction. (I'm not sure pg_upgrade checks NAMEDATALEN > compatibility, but it should require at least one of: same NAMEDATALEN, or > absence of "name" columns in user tables.)
Doing this much seems pretty close to free to me. I doubt anyone really cares about using a NAMEDATALEN value that is not a multiple of 8 on any platform. I also think there are few people who care about AIX. The intersection must be very small indeed, or so I would think. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
