Re: remove ATTRIBUTE_FIXED_PART_SIZE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: remove ATTRIBUTE_FIXED_PART_SIZE
Date
Msg-id 0137d98c-43bd-177c-579d-7e0123891576@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: remove ATTRIBUTE_FIXED_PART_SIZE  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: remove ATTRIBUTE_FIXED_PART_SIZE
List pgsql-hackers
On 21/08/2018 17:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 20/08/2018 15:14, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I agree this is all moot as long as there's no pad bytes.  What I'm
>> trying to figure out is if we need to put in place some provisions
>> to prevent there from being pad bytes at the end of any catalog struct.
>> According to what Andres is saying, it seems like we do (at least for
>> ones with varlena fields).
> 
> Yes, I think there could be a problem.  I took a brief look through the
> catalogs, and while there are plenty of catalogs with trailing padding,
> finding that in combination with trailing varlena fields that might
> legitimately be all null in practice might require a closer look.

Looking into this a bit more, a few catalogs could use some
BKI_FORCE_NOT_NULL settings, which then avoids the described situation.
See attached patch.

That leaves pg_constraint and pg_event_trigger where you can construct
legitimate tuples where the fixed portion has trailing padding and the
variable fields can all be null.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alexandra Ryzhevich
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add regress test for pg_read_all_stats role
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: table_privileges view under information_schema doesn't show privileges on materialized views