I wrote: > It occurs to me that, rather than trying to improve the struct definition > methodology, maybe we should just add static asserts to catch any > inconsistency here. It wouldn't be that hard:
> #define PGSTAT_MAX_MSG_SIZE 1000 > #define PGSTAT_MSG_PAYLOAD (PGSTAT_MAX_MSG_SIZE - sizeof(PgStat_MsgHdr)) > ... all else in pgstat.h as before ... > StaticAssertStmt(sizeof(PgStat_MsgTabstat) <= PGSTAT_MAX_MSG_SIZE, > 'bad PgStat_MsgTabstat size'); > ... and similarly for other pgstat message structs ... After further thought it seems to me that this is a desirable approach, because it is a direct check of the property we want, and will complain about *any* mistake that results in too-large struct sizes. The other ideas that were kicked around upthread still left a lot of ways to mess up the array size calculations, for instance referencing the wrong array element type in the sizeof calculation. So unless anyone has a concrete objection, I'll go put in something like this along with Mark's fix. 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