Re: Range checks of pg_test_fsync --secs-per-test and pg_test_timing --duration

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Range checks of pg_test_fsync --secs-per-test and pg_test_timing --duration
Date: 2020-09-11 07:08:23
Message-ID: 20200911070823.GI2743@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 03:59:20PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The first patch you proposed checks for errno == ERANGE, but pgbench code
> doesn't do that. So one of them is not correct.

Sorry for the confusion, I misunderstood what you were referring to.
Yes, the first patch is wrong to add the check on errno. FWIW, I
thought about your point to use strtol() but that does not seem worth
the complication for those tools. It is not like anybody is going to
use high values for these, and using uint64 to make sure that the
boundaries are checked just add more checks for bounds. There is
one example in pg_test_timing when compiling the total time.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message bttanakahbk 2020-09-11 07:23:28 Re: track_planning causing performance regression
Previous Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2020-09-11 06:58:04 Re: Improvements in Copy From