| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: shared tempfile was not removed on statement_timeout |
| Date: | 2021-02-15 01:33:00 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGKqPN2hUJDVSv2dLneak-iuvbjnpYQuQ8VTJxn_n0Nc=g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 5:47 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 6:07 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > So that gives a very simple back-patchable patch.
> >
> > Hmm, so is the *rest* of that function perfectly okay with being
> > interrupted?
>
> It looks OK to me. There aren't any CFI()s in there.
Pushed. That closes CF #2657.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-02-15 01:34:58 | Re: GCC warning in back branches |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-02-15 01:28:19 | Re: pg_cryptohash_final possible out-of-bounds access (per Coverity) |