| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: seawasp failing, maybe in glibc allocator |
| Date: | 2021-06-19 14:12:03 |
| Message-ID: | 1378908.1624111923@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 5:07 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> if (error != LLVMErrorSuccess)
>> LLVMOrcDisposeMaterializationUnit(mu);
>>
>> +#if LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR > 12
>> + for (int i = 0; i < LookupSetSize; i++)
>> + LLVMOrcRetainSymbolStringPoolEntry(symbols[i].Name);
>> +#endif
> (Though, erm, that code probably either needs to move a bit further up
> or become conditional, considering the error case immediately above
> it, not sure which...)
Is a compile-time conditional really going to be reliable? See nearby
arguments about compile-time vs run-time checks for libpq features.
It's not clear to me how tightly LLVM binds its headers and running
code.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-06-19 14:44:11 | Re: Optionally automatically disable logical replication subscriptions on error |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-06-19 10:17:18 | Re: Optionally automatically disable logical replication subscriptions on error |