On 2014-05-05 18:50:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2014-05-05 15:41:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Looks all right to me. Yeah, the right shift might have undefined
> >> high-order bits, but we don't care because we're storing the result
> >> into an int16.
>
> > Doesn'
On 2014-05-05 15:41:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > After far, far too much confused head scratching, code reading, random
> > elog()s et al I found out that this is just because of a deficiency in
> > valgrind's undefinedness tracking. [...]
> > Unfortunately this cannot precisely be caught by valgr
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2014-05-05 15:41:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Looks all right to me. Yeah, the right shift might have undefined
>> high-order bits, but we don't care because we're storing the result
>> into an int16.
> Doesn't at the very least
> rnode.backend = (msg->sm
On 2014-05-05 15:41:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > a) SICleanupQueue() sometimes releases and reacquires the write lock
> >held on the outside. That's pretty damn fragile, not to mention
> >ugly. Even slight reformulations of the code in SIInsertDataEntries()
> >
Andres Freund writes:
> a) SICleanupQueue() sometimes releases and reacquires the write lock
>held on the outside. That's pretty damn fragile, not to mention
>ugly. Even slight reformulations of the code in SIInsertDataEntries()
>can break this... Can we please extend the comment in th
On 2014-05-05 14:15:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > While investigating an issue pointed out by valgrind around undefined
> > bytes in inval.c SHAREDINVALSMGR_ID processing I noticed that there's a
> > bug in ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages(). It tries to be safe against
> > rec
Andres Freund writes:
> While investigating an issue pointed out by valgrind around undefined
> bytes in inval.c SHAREDINVALSMGR_ID processing I noticed that there's a
> bug in ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages(). It tries to be safe against
> recursion but it's not:
> When it recurses into ReceiveShar
Hi,
While investigating an issue pointed out by valgrind around undefined
bytes in inval.c SHAREDINVALSMGR_ID processing I noticed that there's a
bug in ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages(). It tries to be safe against
recursion but it's not:
When it recurses into ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages() from it'
