On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 1:43 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> At Tue, 19 Jul 2022 16:57:14 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote in
> > At Tue, 19 Jul 2022 16:02:26 +0900, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote in
> > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 1:47 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Good work. I wonder without comments this may create a problem in the
> > > > future. OTOH, I don't see adding a check "catchange.xcnt > 0" before
> > > > freeing the memory any less robust. Also, for consistency, we can use
> > > > a similar check based on xcnt in the SnapBuildRestore to free the
> > > > memory in the below code:
> > > > + /* set catalog modifying transactions */
> > > > + if (builder->catchange.xip)
> > > > + pfree(builder->catchange.xip);
> > >
> > > I would hesitate to add comments about preventing the particular
> > > optimization. I think we do null-pointer-check-then-pfree many place.
> > > It seems to me that checking the array length before memcpy is more
> > > natural than checking both the array length and the array existence
> > > before pfree.
> >
> > Anyway according to commit message of 46ab07ffda, POSIX forbits
> > memcpy(NULL, NULL, 0). It seems to me that it is the cause of the
> > false (or over) optimization. So if we add some comment, it would be
> > for memcpy, not pfree..
>
> For clarilty, I meant that I don't think we need that comment.
>
Fair enough. I think commit 46ab07ffda clearly explains why it is a
good idea to add a check as Sawada-San did in his latest version. I
also agree that we don't any comment for this change.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.