From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #17855: Uninitialised memory used when the name type value processed in binary mode of Memoize |
Date: | 2023-03-23 04:01:24 |
Message-ID: | CAApHDvp0P7ZHwXpt_s8DGCvH-G4RW=GSd1vTzYYzDqGeFsgMkg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 at 16:25, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> Have you seen the comments about the cstring/name_ops hack mentioning
> a SIGSEGV in btrescan()? Those were added around the time index-only
> scans first went in.
I'd not seen it. That's a bit disappointing. Is all this just to work
around not having to store the full 64 bytes for a name in indexes?
Seems it there are a few hacks that try to make this work. I wonder
if we should just invent new hacks in the form of a new version of
datum_image_eq that accepts a pointer to a FormData_pg_attribute
instead of typByVal and typLen then just special case NAMEOID types to
always compare as cstrings. Same for datum_image_hash().
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-03-23 04:27:19 | Re: BUG #17855: Uninitialised memory used when the name type value processed in binary mode of Memoize |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-03-23 03:25:25 | Re: BUG #17855: Uninitialised memory used when the name type value processed in binary mode of Memoize |