Re: Why our Valgrind reports suck

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why our Valgrind reports suck
Date: 2025-05-23 15:49:04
Message-ID: CAH2-Wz=3QkdT1ivD+a25GspurTUy1cU8pU93uK6k9OiZ6hZa-A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 11:42 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > I'm envisioning this patch series as v19 work, were you
> > thinking we should be more aggressive?
>
> Mostly agreed - but I am wondering if the AV fix should be backpatched?

I think that it probably should be.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Xuneng Zhou 2025-05-23 15:51:01 Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication
Previous Message Andres Freund 2025-05-23 15:42:49 Re: Why our Valgrind reports suck