Re: Using Valgrind to detect faulty buffer accesses (no pin or buffer content lock held)
От | Anastasia Lubennikova |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Using Valgrind to detect faulty buffer accesses (no pin or buffer content lock held) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 7a51c88c-0eab-8409-42db-14c070d4d9d3@postgrespro.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Using Valgrind to detect faulty buffer accesses (no pin or buffer content lock held) (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Ответы |
Re: Using Valgrind to detect faulty buffer accesses (no pin or buffer content lock held)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 02.07.2020 20:11, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:48 AM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote: >> This patch fails to apply to HEAD due to conflicts in nbtpage.c, can you please >> submit a rebased version? > I attach the rebased patch series. > > Thanks It's impressive that this check helped to find several bugs. I only noticed small inconsistency in the new comment for _bt_conditionallockbuf(). It says "Note: Caller is responsible for calling _bt_checkpage() on success.", while in _bt_getbuf() the call is not followed by _bt_checkpage(). Moreover, _bt_page_recyclable() contradicts _bt_checkpage() checks. Other than that, patches look good to me, so move them to "Ready For Committer". Are you planning to add same checks for other access methods? -- Anastasia Lubennikova Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: