Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> writes: > ISTM the "correct" fix would be to define a gbtreekey12 data type and > use that. That's not back-patchable though, and introducing a whole new > type to save a few bytes is hardly worth it. What you did makes sense.
BTW, the *real* problem with all this stuff is that the gbtreekeyNN types are declared as having int alignment, even though some of the opclasses store double-aligned types in them. I imagine it's possible to provoke bus errors on machines that are picky about alignment. The first column of an index is safe enough because index tuples will be double-aligned anyway, but it seems like there's a hazard for lower-order columns. This is something we cannot fix compatibly :-( 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