Re: removal of dangling temp tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: removal of dangling temp tables
Date
Msg-id 30574.1546015645@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: removal of dangling temp tables  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: removal of dangling temp tables
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> I looked at
>> https://github.com/postgrespro/pg_wait_sampling/blob/master/pg_wait_sampling.c
>> https://github.com/citusdata/citus/search?q=pgproc&unscoped_q=pgproc
>> and skimmed a few others can't find any instance where the full struct
>> is used, as opposed to just a pointer to it.

> No, the point Michael is making is that the array stride in the ProcArray
> is part of our ABI.  For example, accessing a PGPROC from its pgprocno
> using the GetPGProcByNumber macro will be broken if we change the
> struct size.  I do not think you can assume that no extension does that.

In fact, there's a counterexample right here in pg_wait_sampling:

https://github.com/postgrespro/pg_wait_sampling/blob/master/pg_wait_sampling.c#L343

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: add_partial_path() may remove dominated path but still in use
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: random() (was Re: New GUC to sample log queries)