Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > > On 04/20/2011 01:16 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>> This implies to me that we changed something about how we handle this > >>> since we did the 9.0 runs, but I don't know what it was. Should I? > > >> I think Andrew also supplied the typedef list for the 9.0 run. > > > Yes. But in November, the server where all my animals were running died. > > The rebuilt machines all used newer versions of the OS, new compilers > > and newer tools such as objdump. As I pointed out at the time I > > committed the new typedefs list, that accounts for a lot of the changes. > > It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out that newer gcc's > stopped emitting symbol table entries for unreferenced typedefs. > > In fact, using HEAD, I get this on my old HPUX box: > > (gdb) p sizeof(BulkInsertStateData) > $65 = 8 > > and this on my Fedora 13 box: > > (gdb) p sizeof(BulkInsertStateData) > No symbol "BulkInsertStateData" in current context. > > (gcc 2.95.3 and 4.4.5 respectively) So the tools definitely changed > sometime in the last N years.
So the list of possible additions Andrew supplied are cases where we never reference those typedefs --- seems like a cleanup opportunity. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers