Re: Using Valgrind to detect faulty buffer accesses (no pin or buffer content lock held)

From: Georgios <gkokolatos(at)protonmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Using Valgrind to detect faulty buffer accesses (no pin or buffer content lock held)
Date: 2020-07-22 07:57:31
Message-ID: EY-r5luJpAHxpbphMAhaNWRMqYjODEcd91Zpa2RrcCzE8jgtyBwctmaXZgTz8KkP5XICls_HiWshFSiFss9alM7wXZs1CjXgimrc5z0t4lM=@protonmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 11:52 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 1:35 AM Georgios Kokolatos
> gkokolatos(at)protonmail(dot)com wrote:
>
> > As a general overview, the series of patches in the mail thread do match their description. The addition of the stricter, explicit use of instrumentation does improve the design as the distinction of the use cases requiring a pin or a lock is made more clear. The added commentary is descriptive and appears grammatically correct, at least to a non native speaker.
>
> I didn't see this review until now because it ended up in gmail's spam
> folder. :-(
>
> Thanks for taking a look at it!

No worries at all. It happens and it was beneficial for me to read the patch.

//Georgios
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2020-07-22 08:18:07 Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead
Previous Message torikoshia 2020-07-22 07:49:53 Re: Is it useful to record whether plans are generic or custom?