Re: Range checks of pg_test_fsync --secs-per-test and pg_test_timing --duration - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Range checks of pg_test_fsync --secs-per-test and pg_test_timing --duration
Date
Msg-id 20200911070823.GI2743@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Range checks of pg_test_fsync --secs-per-test and pg_test_timing --duration  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Range checks of pg_test_fsync --secs-per-test and pg_test_timing --duration  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 03:59:20PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The first patch you proposed checks for errno == ERANGE, but pgbench code
> doesn't do that.  So one of them is not correct.

Sorry for the confusion, I misunderstood what you were referring to.
Yes, the first patch is wrong to add the check on errno.  FWIW, I
thought about your point to use strtol() but that does not seem worth
the complication for those tools.  It is not like anybody is going to
use high values for these, and using uint64 to make sure that the
boundaries are checked just add more checks for bounds.  There is
one example in pg_test_timing when compiling the total time.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: Improvements in Copy From
Next
From: bttanakahbk
Date:
Subject: Re: track_planning causing performance regression