| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ENOSPC FailedAssertion("!(RefCountErrors == 0)" |
| Date: | 2018-07-18 00:55:05 |
| Message-ID: | 18006.1531875305@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Any objections? Anyone want to do further review?
> LGTM. I think this is an improvement. However, it seems like it
> might be a good idea for ResourceOwnerRememberBuffer and
> ResourceOwnerForgetBuffer to Assert(buffer != NULL), so that if
> somebody messes up it will trip an assertion rather than just seg
> faulting.
Uh, what? There are only a few callers of those, and they'd all have
crashed already if they were somehow dealing with an invalid buffer.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-07-18 00:59:14 | Re: ENOSPC FailedAssertion("!(RefCountErrors == 0)" |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-07-18 00:52:16 | Re: ENOSPC FailedAssertion("!(RefCountErrors == 0)" |