Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument
Дата
Msg-id 21344.1485386181@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Список pgsql-hackers
[ in the service of closing out this thread... ]

Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes:
> Finally, 0003-* is a Valgrind suppression borrowed from my parallel
> CREATE INDEX patch. It's self-explanatory.

Um, I didn't find it all that self-explanatory.  Why wouldn't we want
to avoid writing undefined data?  I think the comment at least needs
to explain exactly what part of the written data might be uninitialized.
And I'd put the comment into valgrind.supp, too, not in the commit msg.

Also, the suppression seems far too broad.  It would for instance
block any complaint about a write() invoked via an elog call from
any function invoked from any LogicalTape* function, no matter
how far removed.
        regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] pg_ls_dir & friends still have a hard-coded superusercheck
Следующее
От: Stephen Frost
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?