Re: Default Partition for Range

Hi Beena,

I started testing and reviewing the patch. Can you update the patch as v5
patch does not apply cleanly on master?

Thank you,
Rahila Syed

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > I think somebody should do some testing of the existing code with
> > valgrind. And then apply the list-partitioning patch and this patch,
> > and do some more testing with valgrind. It seems to be really easy to
> > miss these uninitialized access problems during code review.
>
> I think it will help, but it may not help in all the scenarios
> because most of the places we are allocating memory with palloc0 (
> initialized with 0) but it never initialized with RANGE_DATUM_DEFAULT
> except the first element (in the case of DEFAULT partition). And,
> later they may be considered as RANGE_DATUM_FINITE (because its value
> is 0).
>
> One solution can be that if bound is DEFAULT then initialize with
> RANGE_DATUM_DEFAULT for the complete content array for that partition
> bound instead of just first. Otherwise, we need to be careful of
> early exiting wherever we are looping the content array of the DEFAULT
> bound.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Dilip Kumar
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>