On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:25 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> +                       char            new_vmbuf[BLCKSZ];
>>> +                       char       *new_cur = new_vmbuf;
>>> +                       bool            empty = true;
>>> +                       bool            old_lastpart;
>>> +
>>> +                       /* Copy page header in advance */
>>> +                       memcpy(new_vmbuf, &pageheader, 
>>> SizeOfPageHeaderData);
>>> Shouldn't we zero out new_vmbuf? Afaics we're not necessarily zeroing it
>>> with old_lastpart && !empty, right?
>> Oh, dear.  That seems like a possible data corruption bug.  Maybe we'd
>> better fix that right away (although I don't actually have time before
>> the wrap).

Actually, on second thought, I'm not seeing the bug here.  It seems to
me that the loop commented this way:

            /* Process old page bytes one by one, and turn it into new page. */

...should always write to every byte in new_vmbuf, because we process
exactly half the bytes in the old block at a time, and so that's going
to generate exactly one full page of new bytes.  Am I missing

> Since the force is always set true, I removed the force from argument
> of copyFile() and rewriteVisibilityMap().
> And destination file is always opened with O_RDWR, O_CREAT, O_TRUNC flags .

I'm not happy with this.  I think we should always open with O_EXCL,
because the new file is not expected to exist and if it does,
something's probably broken.  I think we should default to the safe
behavior (which is failing) rather than the unsafe behavior (which is
clobbering data).

(Status update for Noah: I expect Masahiko Sawada will respond
quickly, but if not I'll give some kind of update by Monday COB

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to