Re: [REVIEW] pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [REVIEW] pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp
Date: 2011-09-29 12:21:32
Message-ID: CAHGQGwG0C21F0CZY5ExX-49dxdx7hJuNeiBBJ0Tzvh+7vMXWgw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Sorry for late to re-review.

Thanks!

>> > Nevertheless this is ok for all OSs, I don't know whether
>> > initializing TimestampTz(double, int64 is ok) field with 8 bytes
>> > zeros is OK or not, for all platforms. (It is ok for
>> > IEEE754-binary64).
>>
>> Which code are you concerned about?
>
> xlog.c: 5889
>>       beentry = pgstat_fetch_all_beentry();
>>
>>       for (i = 0; i < MaxBackends; i++, beentry++)
>>       {
>>               xtime = beentry->st_xact_end_timestamp;
>
>  I think the last line in quoted code above reads possibly
> zero-initialized double (or int64) value, then the doubted will
> be compared and copied to another double.
>
>>               if (result < xtime)
>>                       result = xtime;

I believe it's safe. Such a code is placed elsewhere in the source, too.
If it's unsafe, we should have received lots of bug reports related
to that. But we've not.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message MauMau 2011-09-29 12:23:48 Re: Does RelCache/SysCache shrink except when relations are deleted?
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2011-09-29 12:10:25 Re: Removing savepointLevel from TransactionState