From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Datum as struct |
Date: | 2025-08-08 10:19:56 |
Message-ID: | 66368164-4229-443c-9251-3cb52f5d9d19@eisentraut.org |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07.08.25 03:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I think that on a 32-bit machine this would actually result in a
>> null-pointer core dump, since the 0.0 would be coerced to a zero
>> Datum value. The line is not reached in our regression tests,
>> and given the lack of field complaints, it must be hard to reach
>> in normal use too. Or 32-bit machines are deader than I thought.
>
> On closer inspection, it's unreachable because bqarr_in won't
> accept an empty query, and there is no other function that will
> create query_int values. So probably it's not worth the trouble
> to back-patch.
I ended up backpatching this, since it was easy enough and I didn't want
to leave such patently broken code lie around. And it will allow us to
label the remaining cleanup patches as "harmless". I'll go commit those
to master next.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) | 2025-08-08 10:24:03 | RE: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |
Previous Message | Nazir Bilal Yavuz | 2025-08-08 10:17:45 | Re: Add pg_buffercache_mark_dirty[_all] functions to the pg_buffercache |