Re: BUG #17847: Unaligned memory access in ltree_gist

From: Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #17847: Unaligned memory access in ltree_gist
Date: 2023-04-18 15:19:27
Message-ID: CALT9ZEGhQfRM5ix280xeQgRm4RzO2QW58Nxv2VdLwu6tQh0uUg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Hi, Tom!

On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 at 19:06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > LGMT. I'm going to push v3 unless there are more comments.
>
> I think this reads pretty awkwardly:
>
> +ERROR: siglen value must be integer-aligned
> +DETAIL: Valid are int-aligned values between "4" and "2024".
>
> The DETAIL message's grammar seems a bit off. Also, this is confusing the
> range limitation with the alignment requirement. How about just saying

> ERROR: siglen value must be a multiple of 4
I definitely like this wording.

> and leaving out-of-range cases to be handled by the existing check?
But that means that if we try 2025 then we just get it is not multiple
of 4 (and no clue of the range). Then we try 2028 and get another
error that it's outside of range. I suppose giving clues one by one
makes this look like a step-by-step quest. But in principle it's
possible.

Regards,
Pavel Borisov

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-04-18 15:25:42 Re: BUG #17847: Unaligned memory access in ltree_gist
Previous Message Tom Lane 2023-04-18 15:06:41 Re: BUG #17847: Unaligned memory access in ltree_gist