Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Steele
Subject Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument
Date
Msg-id 0902162d-fcfb-91c1-dc0e-af7b1b635b4d@pgmasters.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument  (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter,

On 2/1/17 12:59 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> [ 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.

It looks like we are waiting on a new patch.  Do you know when you will
have that ready?

Thanks,
-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [Doc fix] Wrong explanation about tsquery_phrase
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics (v25)