Em qua., 10 de set. de 2025 às 23:53, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> escreveu:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 09:36:52PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote: > But my concern is the flexibility of this approach. If someone is to add an > OID field next, they will not be able to as that will be introducing > padding. On the other hand, passing the key by reference and > documenting the reason in pgstat_shmem.c will not lose this > flexibility.
I don't mind discarding the static assertion idea, but at the end what counts for me here is that I don't want to sacrifice future changes in the pgstats code that would always require passing around the hash key by reference.
So I would just do like attached, documenting at the top of PgStat_HashKey that we should not have padding in it, removing three memset(0) calls that expected it.
Currently no compiler guarantees that static initialization will fill possible holes,
