| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Non-reproducible valgrind failure on HEAD |
| Date: | 2021-05-09 22:17:36 |
| Message-ID: | 542798.1620598656@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:
> On 2021-05-09 17:12:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (I wonder if we shouldn't adjust the comments in pg_config_manual.h,
>> though, as they certainly leave the impression that USE_VALGRIND
>> isn't essential.)
> That'd make sense to me. If we found a better way to deal with the
> sinval thing it'd be good too - but I am not seeing anything convincing,
> and I looked a couple times over the years...
Yeah, it's actually somewhat amazing that we get useful results at all
around shared-memory accesses.
Proposed comment patch attached.
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| improve-USE_VALGRIND-comment.patch | text/x-diff | 1.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2021-05-09 22:35:07 | Is template1 intended to have oid 1 ? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-05-09 21:17:50 | Re: Non-reproducible valgrind failure on HEAD |