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

Reply via email to