Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument
От
David Steele
Тема
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument
Дата
Msg-id
dfe765de-b7c8-cfa2-f3cc-3e860a6a770c@pgmasters.net
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Re: tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Re: tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaav@gmail.com>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Re: tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Re: tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
Re: tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Hi Peter, On 3/2/17 9:43 AM, David Steele wrote: > Peter, > > On 2/1/17 12:59 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> [ in the service of closing out this thread... ] >>> >>> Peter Geoghegan 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. > > It looks like we are waiting on a new patch. Do you know when you will > have that ready? It's been a while since there was a new patch or any activity on this thread. If you need more time to produce a patch, please post an explanation for the delay and a schedule for the new patch. If no patch or explanation is is posted by 2017-03-16 AoE I will mark this submission "Returned with Feedback". Thanks, -- -David david@pgmasters.net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата: