Re: tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument

From: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument
Date: 2017-03-02 14:43:06
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 2/1/17 12:59 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> [ in the service of closing out this thread... ]
>> Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
>>> Finally, 0003-* is a Valgrind suppression borrowed from my parallel
>>> CREATE INDEX patch. It's self-explanatory.
>> Um, I didn't find it all that self-explanatory. Why wouldn't we want
>> to avoid writing undefined data? I think the comment at least needs
>> to explain exactly what part of the written data might be uninitialized.
>> And I'd put the comment into valgrind.supp, too, not in the commit msg.
>> Also, the suppression seems far too broad. It would for instance
>> block any complaint about a write() invoked via an elog call from
>> any function invoked from any LogicalTape* function, no matter
>> how far removed.

It looks like we are waiting on a new patch. Do you know when you will
have that ready?


In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2017-03-02 14:52:51 Re: multivariate statistics (v25)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-03-02 14:36:51 Re: [Doc fix] Wrong explanation about tsquery_phrase