Tomas Vondra wrote:
> OK, this did the trick. And just as I suspected, it seems to be due to doing
> memcpy+offsetof when serializing the statistic into a bytea. The attached
> patch fixes that for me. Can you test it on your build?
Buildfarm member skink confirms that this is fixed. Thanks!
--
On 03/26/2017 08:47 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2017-03-26 20:38:52 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
...
Hmmm, so I have a theory about what's going on, but no matter what I do I
can't trigger these valgrind failures. What switches are you using to start
valgrind? I'm using this:
valgrind --leak-chec
On 2017-03-26 20:38:52 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 03/25/2017 10:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> ...
> > ==2486== Uninitialised byte(s) found during client check request
> > ==2486==at 0x1C4857: printtup (printtup.c:347)
> > ==2486==by 0x401FD5: ExecutePlan (execMain.c:1681)
> > ==2486==
On 03/25/2017 10:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
...
==2486== Uninitialised byte(s) found during client check request
==2486==at 0x1C4857: printtup (printtup.c:347)
==2486==by 0x401FD5: ExecutePlan (execMain.c:1681)
==2486==by 0x3FFDED: standard_ExecutorRun (execMain.c:355)
==2486==by
Andres Freund writes:
> I just tried to run valgrind before pushing my expression evaluation
> work, but that triggers independent failures:
FWIW, I just now finished valgrinding the regression tests on 457a44487
plus the expression patch, and it looked good. So these failures
are definitely ind
Hi,
I just tried to run valgrind before pushing my expression evaluation
work, but that triggers independent failures:
==2486== Uninitialised byte(s) found during client check request
==2486==at 0x5B56B9: PageAddItemExtended (bufpage.c:329)
==2486==by 0x225E14: RelationPutHeapTuple (hio.c
