On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:48 PM Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> Here's a more-verbose description of (2), with additions about what it does
> and doesn't achieve:
>
> 2. On systems where double alignment differs from int64 alignment, require
> NAMEDATALEN%8==0. Modify the test from commits 79b716c and c1da0ac to stop
> treating "name" fields specially. The test will still fail for AIX
> compatibility violations, but "name" columns no longer limit your field
> position candidates like they do today (today == option (1)). Upgrading to
> v16 would require dump/reload for AIX users changing NAMEDATALEN to conform
> to the new restriction. (I'm not sure pg_upgrade checks NAMEDATALEN
> compatibility, but it should require at least one of: same NAMEDATALEN, or
> absence of "name" columns in user tables.)
Doing this much seems pretty close to free to me. I doubt anyone
really cares about using a NAMEDATALEN value that is not a multiple of
8 on any platform. I also think there are few people who care about
AIX. The intersection must be very small indeed, or so I would think.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
