Re: btree_gist valgrind warnings about uninitialized memory

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: btree_gist valgrind warnings about uninitialized memory
Date: 2014-06-04 23:25:37
Message-ID: 20140604232537.GP785@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-05-14 12:20:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2014-05-14 10:07:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think that's an OK restriction as long as we warn people about it
> >> (you could update a replication pair as long as you shut them both
> >> down cleanly at the same time, right?). Can the WAL replay routine
> >> be made to detect incompatible records?
>
> > We could just bump the wal version. Somewhat surprisingly that works if
> > both nodes are shutdown cleanly (primary first)... But the errors about
> > it are really ugly (will moan about unusable checkpoints), so it's
> > probably not a good idea. Especially as it'll make it an issue for all
> > users, not just the ones creating spgist indexes.
>
> Yeah, I don't think we want to bump the WAL version code post-beta1.
>
> Probably better to assign the modified spgist record a new xl_info ID
> number, so that a beta1 slave would throw an error for it.

Since that ship has now sailed...? It's imo bad form to release a new
version that overwrites the stack and heap, even if we can't see a
concrete danger.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-06-04 23:28:26 Re: Sigh, we need an initdb
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-06-04 23:24:14 slotname vs slot_name