Re: report expected contrecord size - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: report expected contrecord size
Date
Msg-id 20200903220034.GA22006@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: report expected contrecord size  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: report expected contrecord size  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2020-Sep-03, Tom Lane wrote:

> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > A pretty minor issue: when reporting that WAL appears invalid because
> > contrecord length doesn't match, we may as well print to the server log
> > the value that we're expecting.  Patch attached.
> 
> ITYW
> 
> +                                      (long long) (total_len - gotlen),
> 
> just to be sure about what's getting casted to what.

Well, the intention there is to cast the first operand (which is uint32)
so that it turns into signed 64-bits; the subtraction then occurs in 64
bit arithmetic normally.  If I let the subtraction occur in 32-bit width
unsigned, the result might overflow 32 bits.  I'm thinking in
1 - UINT32_MAX or some such.

Maybe to make that more explicit, it should be

+                                      ((long long) total_len) - gotlen,

(If I understand the precedence correctly, it's the same thing I wrote).

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Bossart, Nathan"
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: report expected contrecord size