| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 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 15:42:49 |
| Message-ID: | vcbwaa7wtojfkhrhmb6d6aexhf7l3mpwzud2defzifnvejlhlc@wh4mkk5bqpgc |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2025-05-22 21:48:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> >> But this is the last step to get to zero reported leaks in a run of the core
> >> regression tests, so let's do it.
>
> > I assume that's just about the core tests, not more? I.e. I can't make skink
> > enable leak checking?
>
> No, we're not there yet. I've identified some other backend issues (in
> postgres_fdw in particular), and I've not looked at frontend programs
> at all. For most frontend programs, I'm dubious how much we care.
Skink only tests backend stuff anyway, but the other backend issues make it a
no go for no...
> 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?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2025-05-23 15:49:04 | Re: Why our Valgrind reports suck |
| Previous Message | vignesh C | 2025-05-23 15:25:27 | Random subscription 021_twophase test failure on kestrel |