> > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56eff347.20...@anastigmatix.net > That discussion is about SQL-level types which could be stored on > disk, not about in-memory structs
I must respectfully disagree. That discussion is also about memory sanitizers and using them on buildfarms. Lets say you initialize a structure like this: st->f1 = 111; st->f2 = 222; ... without using memset, so there could be a "hole" with uninitialized data somewhere in between of f1 and f2. Than some code calculates a hash of this structure or does memcpy - and 1) You get unreproducible behavior - hash is always different for the same structure, thus it is stored in different hash buckets, etc, and as a result you got bugs that sometimes reproduce and sometimes do not 2) There is one more place where sanitizers could report accesses to uninitialized values and thus they still can't be used on buildfarms where they could find a lot of serious bugs automatically. I believe MemorySanitizer is smart enough to recognize trivial memcpy case, but it could be confused in more complicated cases. Anyway I suggest continue discussion of whether we should make PostgreSQL sanitizers-friendly or not in a corresponding thread. So far no one spoke against this idea. Thus I don't think that new patches should complicate implementing it. Especially considering that it's very simple to do and even is considered a good practice according to PostgreSQL documentation. -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev http://eax.me/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
