Hi Beena, I started testing and reviewing the patch. Can you update the patch as v5 patch does not apply cleanly on master?
Thank you, Rahila Syed On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I think somebody should do some testing of the existing code with > > valgrind. And then apply the list-partitioning patch and this patch, > > and do some more testing with valgrind. It seems to be really easy to > > miss these uninitialized access problems during code review. > > I think it will help, but it may not help in all the scenarios > because most of the places we are allocating memory with palloc0 ( > initialized with 0) but it never initialized with RANGE_DATUM_DEFAULT > except the first element (in the case of DEFAULT partition). And, > later they may be considered as RANGE_DATUM_FINITE (because its value > is 0). > > One solution can be that if bound is DEFAULT then initialize with > RANGE_DATUM_DEFAULT for the complete content array for that partition > bound instead of just first. Otherwise, we need to be careful of > early exiting wherever we are looping the content array of the DEFAULT > bound. > > -- > Regards, > Dilip Kumar > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
