On Aug 14 2025, at 11:37 am, Greg Burd <greg@burd.me> wrote:
>
> 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
Well, that was rushed. Apologies.
-greg
