| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com, pasim(at)vmware(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: elog(DEBUG2 in SpinLocked section. |
| Date: | 2020-06-16 23:46:29 |
| Message-ID: | 1406503.1592351189@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> I experimented with making the compiler warn about about some of these
> kinds of mistakes without needing full test coverage:
> I was able to get clang to warn about things like using palloc in signal
> handlers, or using palloc while holding a spinlock. Which would be
> great, except that it doesn't warn when there's an un-annotated
> intermediary function. Even when that function is in the same TU.
Hm. Couldn't we make "calling an un-annotated function" be a violation
in itself? Certainly in the case of spinlocks, what we want is pretty
nearly a total ban on calling anything at all. I wouldn't cry too hard
about having a similar policy for signal handlers. (The postmaster's
handlers would have to be an exception for now.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-06-16 23:50:37 | Re: Operator class parameters and sgml docs |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2020-06-16 23:41:06 | Re: language cleanups in code and docs |