| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ENOSPC FailedAssertion("!(RefCountErrors == 0)" |
| Date: | 2018-07-18 00:59:14 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYR3b1hbkaHvch88F0st7WLrPriU=UzmGA5v1nvKWoYbA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Any objections? Anyone want to do further review?
>
>> LGTM. I think this is an improvement. However, it seems like it
>> might be a good idea for ResourceOwnerRememberBuffer and
>> ResourceOwnerForgetBuffer to Assert(buffer != NULL), so that if
>> somebody messes up it will trip an assertion rather than just seg
>> faulting.
>
> Uh, what? There are only a few callers of those, and they'd all have
> crashed already if they were somehow dealing with an invalid buffer.
Sorry, I meant Assert(owner != NULL).
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-07-18 01:01:03 | Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-07-18 00:55:05 | Re: ENOSPC FailedAssertion("!(RefCountErrors == 0)" |