Re: [PATCH] Fix division by zero (explain.c)

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix division by zero (explain.c)
Date: 2020-05-09 17:44:40
Message-ID: 20200509174440.hvzrifqtu7fhbnkq@development
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 06:48:59AM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>Em sáb., 9 de mai. de 2020 às 01:45, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> escreveu:
>
>> James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> > There are always full sort groups before any prefix groups can happen,
>> > so we know (even though the tooling doesn't) that the 2nd test can
>> > never contradict the first.
>>
>> So maybe an assertion enforcing that would be appropriate?
>> Untested, but:
>>
>> - if (fullsortGroupInfo->groupCount == 0 &&
>> - prefixsortGroupInfo->groupCount == 0)
>> + if (fullsortGroupInfo->groupCount == 0)
>> + {
>> + Assert(prefixsortGroupInfo->groupCount ==
>> 0);
>> continue;
>> + }
>>
>I agree, asserts always help.
>

That doesn't work, because the prefixSortGroupInfo is used before
assignment, producing compile-time warnings.

I've pushed a simpler fix without the assert. If we want to make this
check, perhaps doing it in incremental sort itself would be better than
doing it in explain.

regards

--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2020-05-09 17:46:37 Re: Incremental sorts and EXEC_FLAG_REWIND
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2020-05-09 17:30:11 Re: Another modest proposal for docs formatting: catalog descriptions