Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> If I recall that code correctly, the assumption was that if the third
>> argument is zero then memcmp() must not fetch any bytes (not should not,
>> but MUST not) and therefore it doesn't matter if we pass a NULL. Are
>> you seeing any observable problem here, and if so what is it?
> I dunno, this seems like playing with fire to me. A null-test would
> be pretty cheap insurance.
A null test would be a pretty cheap way of masking a bug in that logic,
if we ever introduced one; to wit, that it would cause a call with
argtypes==NULL to match anything.
Possibly saner is
if (nargs == 0 ||
memcmp(argtypes, best_candidate->args, nargs * sizeof(Oid)) == 0)
break;
I remain unconvinced that this is necessary, though. It looks a *whole*
lot like the guards we have against old Solaris' bsearch-of-zero-entries
bug. I maintain that what glibc has done is exactly to introduce a bug
for the zero-entries case, and that Piotr ought to complain to them
about it. At the very least, if you commit this please annotate it
as working around a memcmp bug.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
