From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: report expected contrecord size |
Date: | 2020-09-03 22:00:34 |
Message-ID: | 20200903220034.GA22006@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-Sep-03, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > A pretty minor issue: when reporting that WAL appears invalid because
> > contrecord length doesn't match, we may as well print to the server log
> > the value that we're expecting. Patch attached.
>
> ITYW
>
> + (long long) (total_len - gotlen),
>
> just to be sure about what's getting casted to what.
Well, the intention there is to cast the first operand (which is uint32)
so that it turns into signed 64-bits; the subtraction then occurs in 64
bit arithmetic normally. If I let the subtraction occur in 32-bit width
unsigned, the result might overflow 32 bits. I'm thinking in
1 - UINT32_MAX or some such.
Maybe to make that more explicit, it should be
+ ((long long) total_len) - gotlen,
(If I understand the precedence correctly, it's the same thing I wrote).
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-09-03 22:17:30 | Re: report expected contrecord size |
Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2020-09-03 21:39:55 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |