Hi,
> + values[j++] = UInt16GetDatum(uargs->offset);
> + values[j++] = CStringGetTextDatum(psprintf("(%u,%u)",
> +
> BlockIdGetBlockNumber(&(itup->t_tid.ip_blkid)),
> + itup->t_tid.ip_posid));
> +
> + ptr = (char *) itup + IndexInfoFindDataOffset(itup->t_info);
> + dlen = IndexTupleSize(itup) - IndexInfoFindDataOffset(itup->t_info);
>
> It seems like this could be used to index off the end of the page, if
> you feed it invalid data.
okay, I have handled it in the attached patch.
>
> + dump = palloc0(dlen * 3 + 1);
>
> This is wasteful. Just use palloc and install a terminating NUL byte instead.
>
fixed. Please check the attached patch.
> + sprintf(dump, "%02x", *(ptr + off) & 0xff);
>
> *(ptr + off) is normally written ptr[off].
>
corrected.
> + if (pageopaque->hasho_flag != LH_OVERFLOW_PAGE)
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
> + errmsg("page is not an overflow page"),
> + errdetail("Expected %08x, got %08x.",
> + LH_OVERFLOW_PAGE, pageopaque->hasho_flag)));
>
> I think this is an unnecessary test given that you've already called
> verify_hash_page().
>
Yes, it is not required. I have removed it in the attached patch.
> + if (bitmappage >= metap->hashm_nmaps)
> + elog(ERROR, "invalid overflow bit number %u", ovflbitno);
>
> I think this should be an ereport(), because it's reachable given a
> bogus page which a user might construct (or a corrupted page).
>
okay, I have corrected it.
> +test=# SELECT * FROM hash_page_items(get_raw_page('con_hash_index', 1));
> + itemoffset | ctid | data
> +------------+-----------------+-------------------------
> + 1 | (3145728,14376) | 00 c0 ca 3e 00 00 00 00
> + 2 | (3145728,14376) | 00 c0 ca 3e 00 00 00 00
> + 3 | (3407872,14376) | 00 c0 ca 3e 00 00 00 00
>
> Won't the first 4 bytes always be a hash code and the second 4 bytes
> always 0? Should we just return the hash code as an int4 or int8
> instead of pretending it's a bunch of uninterpretable binary data?
>
Yes, the first 4 bytes represents a hash code and the second 4 bytes
is always zero. Now, returning the hash code as int4.
> +test=# SELECT * FROM hash_bitmap_info('con_hash_index', 2050);
> + bitmapblkno | bitmapbit
> +-------------+-----------
> + 65 | 1
> +</screen>
>
> I find this hard to understand. This says that it returns
> information, but the nature of the returned information is unspecified
> and in my opinion unclear.
>
I have rephrased it to make it more clear.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers