On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 04:11:47PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 4:06 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> I don't think we have ever expressed it as such, but certainly we prefer
>> postmaster to be super robust ... rather live with a some hundred bytes
>> leak rather than have it
Em ter., 28 de jan. de 2020 às 18:06, Alvaro Herrera <
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> escreveu:
> On 2020-Jan-28, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:13 AM Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > > No, that's not right. I think that it is possible to loop over
> > > ShmemProtectiveRegion in some
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 4:06 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I don't think we have ever expressed it as such, but certainly we prefer
> postmaster to be super robust ... rather live with a some hundred bytes
> leak rather than have it die and take the whole database service down
> for what's essentiall
Em ter., 28 de jan. de 2020 às 17:54, Robert Haas
escreveu:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:13 AM Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > No, that's not right. I think that it is possible to loop over
> > ShmemProtectiveRegion in some cases. And actually, your patch is dead
> > wrong because this is some cod
On 2020-Jan-28, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:13 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > No, that's not right. I think that it is possible to loop over
> > ShmemProtectiveRegion in some cases. And actually, your patch is dead
> > wrong because this is some code called by the postmaster a
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:13 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> No, that's not right. I think that it is possible to loop over
> ShmemProtectiveRegion in some cases. And actually, your patch is dead
> wrong because this is some code called by the postmaster and it cannot
> use FATAL.
Uh, really? I am
Em dom., 26 de jan. de 2020 às 23:04, Michael Paquier
escreveu:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 09:37:25AM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > Em sex., 24 de jan. de 2020 às 04:13, Michael Paquier <
> mich...@paquier.xyz>
> > escreveu:
> >> There is some progress. You should be careful about your patches,
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 09:37:25AM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> Em sex., 24 de jan. de 2020 às 04:13, Michael Paquier
> escreveu:
>> There is some progress. You should be careful about your patches,
>> as they generate compiler warnings. Here is one quote from gcc-9:
>> logging.c:87:13: warning
Last time improvement to restricted_token.c
regards,
Ranier Vilela
restricted_token_leaks.patch
Description: Binary data
Em sex., 24 de jan. de 2020 às 04:13, Michael Paquier
escreveu:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 05:51:51PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > After review the patches and build all and run regress checks for each
> > patch, those are the ones that don't break.
>
> There is some progress. You should be ca
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 05:51:51PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> After review the patches and build all and run regress checks for each
> patch, those are the ones that don't break.
There is some progress. You should be careful about your patches,
as they generate compiler warnings. Here is one
Hi,
After review the patches and build all and run regress checks for each
patch, those are the ones that don't break.
Not all leaks detected by Coverity are fixed.
regards,
Ranier Vilela
auth_leak.patch
Description: Binary data
logging_leaks.patch
Description: Binary data
postmaster_leak.pa
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:01:07AM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> Done.
I would recommend that you also run all the regression tests present
in the source before sending a patch. If you don't know how to do
that, there is some documentation on the matter:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/re
Em ter., 21 de jan. de 2020 às 06:18, Juan José Santamaría Flecha <
juanjo.santama...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> Some of the code this patch touches is not windows port only, so the
> subject might be misleading reviewers.
>
True. Some leaks occurs at other platforms.
> It will be easier to review i
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 9:49 PM Ranier Vilela wrote:
>
> Continuing the process of improving windows port, I'm trying to fix some
> leaks.
>
>
Some of the code this patch touches is not windows port only, so the
subject might be misleading reviewers.
It will be easier to review if you break this
Hi, greetings everyone.
Continuing the process of improving windows port, I'm trying to fix some
leaks.
best regards,
Ranier Vilela
win_resource_leak.patch
Description: Binary data
16 matches
Mail list logo