Re: BUG #17855: Uninitialised memory used when the name type value processed in binary mode of Memoize

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  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