On Aug 14 2025, at 11:14 am, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
>> It is valid to pass prevbit as a->nwords * BITS_PER_BITMAPWORD as the
>> code does "prevbit--;". Maybe it would be less confusing if it were
>> written as:
>> * "prevbit" must be less than or equal to "a->nwords * BITS_PER_BITMAPWORD".
>> The Assert should be using <= rather than <.
>
> Actually, I don't agree with that. It's true that it wouldn't fail,
> but a caller doing that is exhibiting undue intimacy with the innards
> of Bitmapsets. The expected usage is that the argument is initially
> -1 and after that the result of the previous call (which'll
> necessarily be less than a->nwords * BITS_PER_BITMAPWORD). We don't
> have any state with which we can verify the chain of calls, but it
> seems totally reasonable to me to disallow an outside caller
> providing an argument >= a->nwords * BITS_PER_BITMAPWORD.
>
> regards, tom lane
Thanks Tom, David,
Seems I also forgot about the case where the Bitmapset passed is NULL.
The new assert needs to handle that as well.
-greg
