On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 5:47 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> Hi, > > On 2023-02-22 16:34:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > I wrote: > > > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > >> Maybe it's worth sticking a StaticAssert() for the struct size > > >> somewhere. > > > > > Indeed. I thought we had one already. > > > > >> I'm a bit wary about that being too noisy, there are some machines > with > > >> odd alignment requirements. Perhaps worth restricting the assertion to > > >> x86-64 + armv8 or such? > > > > > I'd put it in first and only reconsider if it shows unfixable problems. > > > > Now that we've got the sizeof(ExprEvalStep) under control, shouldn't > > we do the attached? > > Indeed. Pushed. > > Let's hope there's no rarely used architecture with odd alignment rules. > > Greetings, > > Andres Freund > > > I have a question about this that may affect some of my future work. My not-ready-for-16 work on CAST( ... ON DEFAULT ... ) involved making FuncExpr/IoCoerceExpr/ArrayCoerceExpr have a safe_mode flag, and that necessitates adding a reserror boolean to ExprEvalStep for subsequent steps to test if the error happened. Will that change be throwing some architectures over the 64 byte count?
