Re: Memory error in src/backend/replication/logical/origin.c

From: Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Memory error in src/backend/replication/logical/origin.c
Date: 2017-11-26 22:31:08
Message-ID: 91DFFD71-4D34-488B-B49A-B9F863CB976A@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> On Nov 26, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> bool nulls[Natts_pg_replication_origin];
>> memset(&nulls, 0, sizeof(nulls));
>
>> around lines 277 through 303. Patch below.
>
> AFAIK this is not a bug, though I agree that dropping the "&" is probably
> better style. The reason is that applying "&" to an undecorated array
> name is basically a no-op, because without "&" the array name would decay
> to a pointer anyway. With "&", the address-taking is explicit, but you
> still get a pointer to the array, not a pointer to some pointer to the
> array. Ain't C fun?

Thanks for the refresher on C madness.

mark

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-11-26 22:56:32 Re: [HACKERS] Bug in ExecModifyTable function and trigger issues for foreign tables
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-11-26 20:19:41 Re: [HACKERS] More stats about skipped vacuums