On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 4:27 AM Andrew Dunstan
<andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 11/7/18 10:05 AM, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
> > On 11/7/18 9:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm confused by this. Surely the pwrite-based code is writing
> >> exactly the
> >> same data as before. Do we have to conclude that valgrind is
> >> complaining
> >> about passing uninitialized data to pwrite() when it did not complain
> >> about exactly the same thing for write()?
> >>
> >> [ looks ... ] No, what we have to conclude is that the write-related
> >> suppressions in src/tools/valgrind.supp need to be replaced or augmented
> >> with pwrite-related ones.
> >
> > The attached patch fixes this for me.
> >
> > Unfortunately pwrite* doesn't work for the pwrite64(buf) line.
>
> Works for me. If there's no objection I will commit this.
Thanks for adjusting that. I suppose I would have known about this if
cfbot checked every patch with valgrind, which I might look into.
I'm a little confused about how an uninitialised value originating in
an OID list finishes up in an xlog buffer, considering that OIDs don't
have padding.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com