On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 11:37 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > The following change fixes it:
>
> Your fix looks good to me. Please go ahead and commit it.
Actually, never mind. I just pushed your fix myself a moment ago.
Thanks again
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 11:33 AM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> AddressSanitizer has a use-after-scope complaint related to this patch.
>
> The following change fixes it:
Your fix looks good to me. Please go ahead and commit it.
Thanks!
--
Peter Geoghegan
On 2020-02-26 22:06, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Add deduplication to nbtree.
AddressSanitizer has a use-after-scope complaint related to this patch.
The following change fixes it:
diff --git a/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtinsert.c
b/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtinsert.c
index a70b64d964..8246ab4f
Hi,
On 2020-03-29 15:19:50 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 3:15 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > Is it perhaps possible to silence the warnign with somethign along the
> > lines of
> > Assert(nhtids + vacposting->ndeletedtids ==
> > BTreeTupleGetNPosting(origtuple))
> > I don'
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 3:15 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Is it perhaps possible to silence the warnign with somethign along the
> lines of
> Assert(nhtids + vacposting->ndeletedtids == BTreeTupleGetNPosting(origtuple))
> I don't know this code, but it looks like that'd have to be true?
> Perhaps tha
Hi,
On 2020-03-01 16:09:37 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 3:01 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > I am happy to add parallel-to-_bt_form_posting() assertions about
> > alignment to _bt_form_posting(), to nail it down completely. Plus I'll
> > add the assertion I suggested alrea
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 9:47 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> I suppose this can be silenced with an appropriate cast, and doing so
> would seem like a good idea.
I pushed a commit that silenced the cpluspluscheck warning just now.
Thanks
--
Peter Geoghegan
Another issue I just noticed is that src/tools/pginclude/cpluspluscheck
complains thusly:
./src/include/access/nbtree.h: In function 'void
BTreeTupleSetPosting(IndexTupleData*, int, int)':
./src/include/access/nbtree.h:384: warning: comparison between signed and
unsigned integer expressions
I s
On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 8:06 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > I was thinking of the approach taken in the attached patch. It more or
> > less copies over the assertions from _bt_form_posting() that did not
> > appear in _bt_update_posting().
>
> OK by me.
Pushed. Thanks.
--
Peter Geoghegan
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 3:01 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> I am happy to add parallel-to-_bt_form_posting() assertions about
>> alignment to _bt_form_posting(), to nail it down completely. Plus I'll
>> add the assertion I suggested already. Once I commit a patch with
>> th
On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 3:01 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I am happy to add parallel-to-_bt_form_posting() assertions about
> alignment to _bt_form_posting(), to nail it down completely. Plus I'll
> add the assertion I suggested already. Once I commit a patch with
> these two new assertions, I think
On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 2:14 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Attached patch shows how this could work. I prefer my original
> > approach, but I can see the argument for doing it this way.
>
> This does seem a bit duplicative ... and shouldn't both code paths
> include a final "Assert(d == vacposting->ndelet
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> Attached patch shows how this could work. I prefer my original
> approach, but I can see the argument for doing it this way.
This does seem a bit duplicative ... and shouldn't both code paths
include a final "Assert(d == vacposting->ndeletedtids)"? So maybe
we're better
On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 11:42 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > Do you want to try coding it that way and see what it
> > comes out like?
>
> Sure.
Attached patch shows how this could work. I prefer my original
approach, but I can see the argument for doing it this way.
If we keep my original approac
On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 11:29 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm. That would probably be enough to shut up Coverity, but I'm unsure
> whether it'd really be an improvement from the legibility and safety
> viewpoints.
I noticed that _bt_update_posting() behaves as if the origtuple might
not be a posting list
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 10:24 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I can see its point: asserting after the fact that you didn't clobber
>> memory isn't a terribly safe coding method, especially in a production
>> build where you won't even have the asserts. Not sure if there's a
>> be
On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 10:24 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> I can see its point: asserting after the fact that you didn't clobber
> memory isn't a terribly safe coding method, especially in a production
> build where you won't even have the asserts. Not sure if there's a
> better way though.
I found it sl
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> Add deduplication to nbtree.
Coverity isn't very happy with the coding in _bt_update_posting():
*** CID 1460433: Memory - corruptions (ARRAY_VS_SINGLETON)
/srv/coverity/git/pgsql-git/postgresql/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtdedup.c:
723 in _bt_update_posting()
717
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:26 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > Are no changes to the "pageinspect" contrib required?
>
> There are. Those will be pushed either today or tomorrow.
Attached is a draft patch for this, with updated documentation. I'd
like to push this tomorrow (Saturday), but if you coul
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:25 AM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> This is great! Thanks!
Thanks!
> Are no changes to the "pageinspect" contrib required?
There are. Those will be pushed either today or tomorrow.
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Wed, 2020-02-26 at 21:06 +, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Add deduplication to nbtree.
This is great! Thanks!
Are no changes to the "pageinspect" contrib required?
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
21 matches
Mail list logo
