On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:11:41PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> When I wrote the dynamic shared memory patch, I used uint64 everywhere
> to measure sizes - rather than, as we do for the main shared memory
> segment, Size. This now seems to me to have been the wrong decision;
> I'm finding that it's advantageous to make dynamic shared memory
> behave as much like the main shared memory segment as is reasonably
> possible, and using Size facilitates the use of MAXALIGN(),
> TYPEALIGN(), etc. as well as things like add_size() and mul_size()
> which are just as relevant in the dynamic shared memory case as they
> are for the main shared memory segment.
>
> Therefore, I propose to apply the attached patch.
+1. The simplicity of platform-independent type sizing had some attraction,
but not so much to justify this sort of friction with the rest of the system.
--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
