Re: BlockNumber initialized to InvalidBuffer?

From: Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BlockNumber initialized to InvalidBuffer?
Date: 2012-07-13 09:33:51
Message-ID: 4FFFEB7F.9090702@bluegap.ch
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 07/11/2012 05:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm also inclined to think that the "while (stack)" coding of the rest
> of it is wrong, misleading, or both, on precisely the same grounds: if
> that loop ever did fall out at the test, the function would have failed
> to honor its contract. The only correct exit points are the "return"s
> in the middle.

I came to the same conclusion, yes. Looks like the additional asserts in
the attached patch all hold true.

As another minor improvement, it doesn't seem necessary to repeatedly
set the rootBlkno.

Regards

Markus Wanner

Attachment Content-Type Size
pg-gin-strange-initialization2.diff text/x-patch 1.6 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2012-07-13 09:51:19 Re: Regarding installation of FDW on Windows
Previous Message Atri Sharma 2012-07-13 09:04:47 Re: Regarding installation of FDW on Windows