Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> writes: > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> It also strikes me that we ought to take this as a warning sign >> that we need to work on getting rid of coding like the above in favor >> of genuine "flexible arrays", before the gcc boys think of some other >> overly-cute optimization based on the assumption that an array declared >> with a fixed size really is fixed.
> The traditional argument against that has been that that's a C99 > feature. Well, we already have a solution for that, see FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER. But up to now we've just supposed that that was a code beautification thing and there was no particular urgency to convert all applicable places to use that notation. Since there's a potential to break code with such changes (we'd have to fix any uses of sizeof on the struct type), it's been very far down the to-do list. But now it appears that we're taking risks if we *don't* change it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers