Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> The respective macro magic is already in place, its just not used in all
> places. The problem is more that we can't easily use it in all places
> because e.g. in the one case mentioned here the array isn't in the last
> place *in the back branches*.
I don't think we should try to back-patch such changes; there seems too
much risk of breaking third-party code because of the sizeof() issue.
But it'd be a good idea to have it in place before we find ourselves
having to do -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations or some such even in
up-to-date branches.
(I'm actually even more worried about gcc bugs that make this type of
assumption than about intentional changes on their part.)
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
