Alexander Korotkov <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> writes: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> That's one mighty ugly patch. Can't you do it without needing to >> introduce the additional layer of struct nesting?
> That's worrying me too. > We could use anonymous struct, but it seems to be prohibited in C89 which > we stick to. > Another idea, which comes to my mind, is to manually calculate size of > padding and insert it directly to PGXACT struct. But that seems rather > ugly too. However, it would be ugly definition not ugly usage... > Do you have better ideas? No, that was the best one that had occurred to me, too. You could probably introduce a StaticAssert that sizeof(PGXACT) is a power of 2 as a means of checking that the manual padding calculation hadn't gotten broken. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers