Thomas Munro writes:
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> OK. Please send in a patch to either do that or switch this call to use
>> noError = false. Or possibly both: shouldn't there be some other signal
>> path that tells the worker whether instrumentation is needed? I'll
>>
On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
>> However, it's not surprising that you drew the
>> opposite conclusion (ie that it might in fact not be in the TOC),
>> since the shm space is really only necessary for EXPLAIN ANALYZE.
>> Perhaps I should make it skip setti
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Fix another instance of unsafe coding for shm_toc_lookup failure.
> my mistake was actually to put noError = true there when noError =
> false was called for.
Ah.
> However, it's not surprising that you drew the
> oppos
On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fix another instance of unsafe coding for shm_toc_lookup failure.
>
> One or another author of commit 5bcf389ec seems to have thought that
> computing an offset from a NULL pointer would yield another NULL pointer.
> There may possibly be architec
