| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Steve Chavez <steve(at)supabase(dot)io>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Assert name/short_desc to prevent SHOW ALL segfault |
| Date: | 2022-05-28 03:26:34 |
| Message-ID: | YpGWamN71O+AGgvm@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 10:43:17AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Makes sense. Here's a new patch set. 0001 is the part intended for
> back-patching, and 0002 is the rest (i.e., adding pg_attribute_nonnull()).
> I switched to using __has_attribute to discover whether nonnull was
Okay, I have looked at 0001 this morning and applied it down to 12.
The change in GetConfigOptionByNum() is not required in 10 and 11, as
the strings of pg_show\all_settings() have begun to be translated in
12~.
> supported, as that seemed cleaner. I didn't see any need for a new
> configure check, but maybe I am missing something.
And I've learnt today that we enforce a definition of __has_attribute
at the top of c.h, and that we already rely on that. So I agree that
what you are doing in 0002 should be enough. Should we wait until 16~
opens for business though? I don't see a strong argument to push
forward with that now that we are in beta mode on HEAD.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-05-28 03:28:16 | Re: Assert name/short_desc to prevent SHOW ALL segfault |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-05-28 01:13:20 | Re: SLRUs in the main buffer pool, redux |