From: | Pavel Golub <pavel(at)microolap(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Golub <pavel(at)microolap(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Error in PQsetvalue |
Date: | 2011-06-06 12:09:15 |
Message-ID: | 1411742178.20110606150915@gf.microolap.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello, guys.
You wrote:
MM> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 6/3/2011 10:26 PM, Andrew Chernow wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I disagree -- I think the fix is a one-liner. line 446:
>>>>> if (tup_num == res->ntups&& !res->tuples[tup_num])
>>>>>
>>>>> should just become
>>>>> if (tup_num == res->ntups)
>>>>>
>>>>> also the memset of the tuple slots when the slot array is expanded can
>>>>> be removed. (in addition, the array tuple array expansion should
>>>>> really be abstracted, but that isn't strictly necessary here).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All true. This is a cleaner fix to something that was in fact broken ;)
>>>> You want
>>>
>>> Attached a patch that fixes the OP's issue. PQsetvalue now uses pqAddTuple
>>> to
>>> grow the tuple table and has removed the remnants of an older idea that
>>> caused
>>> the bug.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, I attached the wrong patch. Here is the correct one.
MM> This looks good. Pavel, want to test it?
Sorry for delay in answer. Yeah, I'm glad to. Should I apply this
patch by myself?
MM> merlin
--
With best wishes,
Pavel mailto:pavel(at)gf(dot)microolap(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2011-06-06 12:14:07 | Re: WIP: Fast GiST index build |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-06 12:08:04 | Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch |