Re: pgsql: Fix another instance of unsafe coding for shm_toc_lookup failure - Mailing list pgsql-committers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: pgsql: Fix another instance of unsafe coding for shm_toc_lookup failure
Date
Msg-id CAEepm=2sCOUoaEgvJqMXdJAzyc=1DYB2ENia4Ld4D7gA8yqREg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pgsql: Fix another instance of unsafe coding for shm_toc_lookup failure  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pgsql: Fix another instance of unsafe coding for shm_toc_lookup failure
List pgsql-committers
On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> However, it's not surprising that you drew the
>> opposite conclusion (ie that it might in fact not be in the TOC),
>> since the shm space is really only necessary for EXPLAIN ANALYZE.
>> Perhaps I should make it skip setting up this shm stuff if
>> !node->ss.ps.instrument, just like the equivalent Sort node code.  I
>> will look into that on Monday.
>
> OK.  Please send in a patch to either do that or switch this call to use
> noError = false.  Or possibly both: shouldn't there be some other signal
> path that tells the worker whether instrumentation is needed?  I'll
> leave it alone pending your investigation.

Here's a patch do to both.

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment

pgsql-committers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: pgsql: doc: Update mentions of MD5 in the documentation
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: pgsql: Skip setting up shared instrumentation for Hash node if notneed