Re: currawong is not a happy animal - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: currawong is not a happy animal
Date
Msg-id 10731.1389989721@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: currawong is not a happy animal  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: currawong is not a happy animal  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane escribi�:
>> I seem to recall that we've previously found that you have to write
>> MAXALIGN(offsetof(shm_mq, mq_ring[0])) + MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF;
>> to keep MSVC happy with a reference to an array member in offsetof.

> Hmm, this seems to contradict what's documented at the definition of
> FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER:

Ah, I thought we had that issue documented somewhere, but failed to find
this comment, or I'd have known that was backwards.

The other possibility I was contemplating is that "export a const
variable" doesn't actually work for some reason.  We're not in the habit
of doing that elsewhere, so I don't find that theory outlandish.  Perhaps
it could be fixed by adding PGDLLIMPORT to the extern, but on the whole
I'd rather avoid the technique altogether.

The least-unlike-other-Postgres-code approach would be to go ahead and
export the struct so that the size computation could be provided as a
#define in the same header.  Robert stated a couple days ago that he
didn't foresee much churn in this struct, so that doesn't seem
unacceptable.

Another possibility is to refactor so that testing an allocation request
against shm_mq_minimum_size is the responsibility of storage/ipc/shm_mq.c,
not some random code in a contrib module.  It's not immediately apparent
to me why it's good code modularization to have a contrib module
responsible for checking sizes based on the sizeof a struct it's not
supposed to have any access to.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: currawong is not a happy animal
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: currawong is not a happy animal