Re: [HACKERS] Subtraction carry bug in xlog.c in 7.3 and 7.4

2003-06-23 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Should we add an Assert() to make it clear the current code is OK? A comment maybe, but not an assert. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe c

Re: [HACKERS] Subtraction carry bug in xlog.c in 7.3 and 7.4

2003-06-23 Thread Bruce Momjian
Should we add an Assert() to make it clear the current code is OK? --- Tom Lane wrote: > "J.R. Nield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The attached patches against 7.3 and 7.4 fix a subtraction carry bug in > > xlog.c. > > T

Re: [HACKERS] Subtraction carry bug in xlog.c in 7.3 and 7.4

2003-06-20 Thread Tom Lane
"J.R. Nield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The attached patches against 7.3 and 7.4 fix a subtraction carry bug in > xlog.c. This is simply a waste of cycles, because xrecoff can never be zero (if it were, it'd be pointing at a page header, which is not a valid record location). If you look aroun

[HACKERS] Subtraction carry bug in xlog.c in 7.3 and 7.4

2003-06-20 Thread J.R. Nield
The attached patches against 7.3 and 7.4 fix a subtraction carry bug in xlog.c. -- John Nield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Index: pgsql-server-7_3/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c diff -c pgsql-server-7_3/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c:1.1.1.1 pgsql-server-7_3/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c:1.1.1.1.