Hi Peter, On 3/2/17 9:43 AM, David Steele wrote: > Peter, > > On 2/1/17 12:59 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> [ in the service of closing out this thread... ] >>> >>> Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> writes: >>>> Finally, 0003-* is a Valgrind suppression borrowed from my parallel >>>> CREATE INDEX patch. It's self-explanatory. >>> >>> Um, I didn't find it all that self-explanatory. Why wouldn't we want >>> to avoid writing undefined data? I think the comment at least needs >>> to explain exactly what part of the written data might be uninitialized. >>> And I'd put the comment into valgrind.supp, too, not in the commit msg. >>> >>> Also, the suppression seems far too broad. It would for instance >>> block any complaint about a write() invoked via an elog call from >>> any function invoked from any LogicalTape* function, no matter >>> how far removed. > > It looks like we are waiting on a new patch. Do you know when you will > have that ready?
It's been a while since there was a new patch or any activity on this thread. If you need more time to produce a patch, please post an explanation for the delay and a schedule for the new patch. If no patch or explanation is is posted by 2017-03-16 AoE I will mark this submission "Returned with Feedback". Thanks, -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
