Hi Timur.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 11:47 PM Timur Magomedov
<t.magomedov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
...
> >
> > Thanks for the patch! Unfortunately, this is straying into areas with
> > which I'm not familiar, so I'm taking it on faith that these are good
> > changes. For now, I'm happy to merge your patch into the next VCI
> > version, posted unless someone else objects.
> >
> > ~
> >
> > But, I still have a couple of questions for clarification:
> >
> > 1. What about the original Valgrind issue?
> >
> > Is that still a problem that needs to be addressed? E.g., is the bad
> > allocation still lurking, and your sort avoidance patch is simply
> > preventing the bad allocation from being exposed until some next
> > thing
> > randomly fails? Or is there no allocation problem anymore to worry
> > about?
>
> Allocations are fine, the problem was using some nodes as nodes of
> another type (and bigger size) which leads to crossing boundary of
> allocated memory. We are safe now and asserts guard us from repeating
> the original bug.
>
Thanks for the clarification.
>
> > 2. What about your added Assert that was previously failing at
> > executor/vci_sort.c:89?
> >
> > That Assert is still present in vci_sort.c, but AFAICT the current
> > tests are not executing that code. Do those patched GUC changes
> > simply
> > make that code unreachable now? In other words, should that
> > previously
> > failing Assert be left where it is or not? Should there be another
> > test case added to execute this Assert?
>
> Added simple test for running VCI sort node, it executes the assertion
> code in vci_sort.c. No assertion fails, so VCI Sort itself is OK. Here
> are both two commits on top of v25 version.
>
These have been included in v26. Thanks!
======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
