On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 7:57 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 3:20 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 8:54 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 12:54 PM Peter Smith
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > PSA my patch to correct this by firstly
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 3:20 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 8:54 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 12:54 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > PSA my patch to correct this by firstly doing a HASH_FIND, then only
> > > HASH_REMOVE after we've finished using the
Hi,
On 2021-03-22 11:20:37 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:50 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > The real problem isn't the Assert. It's all those other usages of ent
> > disobeying the API rule: "(NB: in the case of the REMOVE action, the
> > result is a dangling pointer that
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 9:21 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:50 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > The real problem isn't the Assert. It's all those other usages of ent
> > disobeying the API rule: "(NB: in the case of the REMOVE action, the
> > result is a dangling pointer that
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:50 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> The real problem isn't the Assert. It's all those other usages of ent
> disobeying the API rule: "(NB: in the case of the REMOVE action, the
> result is a dangling pointer that shouldn't be dereferenced!)"
I suppose the HASH_REMOVE case could
On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 8:54 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 12:54 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > PSA my patch to correct this by firstly doing a HASH_FIND, then only
> > HASH_REMOVE after we've finished using the ent.
> >
>
> Why can't we keep using HASH_REMOVE as it is but get
On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 12:54 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> PSA my patch to correct this by firstly doing a HASH_FIND, then only
> HASH_REMOVE after we've finished using the ent.
>
Why can't we keep using HASH_REMOVE as it is but get the output (entry
found or not) in the last parameter of
Hi,
I found some dubious looking HTAB cleanup code for replication streams
(see file:worker.c, function:stream_cleanup_files).
viz.
--
static void
stream_cleanup_files(Oid subid, TransactionId xid)
{
charpath[MAXPGPATH];
StreamXidHash *ent;
/* Remove the xid entry
