Re: Protecting allocator headers with Valgrind

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Protecting allocator headers with Valgrind
Date: 2023-04-15 15:25:58
Message-ID: 20230415152558.GA1363788@rfd.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 01:28:08AM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> Any objections?

Not objecting. I think the original Valgrind integration refrained from this
because it would have added enough Valgrind client requests to greatly slow
Valgrind runs. Valgrind reduced the cost of client requests in later years,
so this new conclusion is reasonable.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Miroslav Bendik 2023-04-15 16:55:51 Incremental sort for access method with ordered scan support (amcanorderbyop)
Previous Message Dmitry Dolgov 2023-04-15 14:40:57 Re: [RFC] Add jit deform_counter