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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument
Date
Msg-id 21344.1485386181@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
List pgsql-hackers
[ 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.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_ls_dir & friends still have a hard-coded superusercheck
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?