| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
| Date: | 2018-02-05 21:27:49 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYFPkVHAxVm6Eo+feUJBxY-p3s6RG6TavfXViGYqvuFSg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> It certainly is common. In the case of logtape.c, we almost always
> write out some garbage bytes, even with serial sorts. The only
> difference here is the *sense* in which they're garbage: they're
> uninitialized bytes, which Valgrind cares about, rather than byte from
> previous writes that are left behind in the buffer, which Valgrind
> does not care about.
/me face-palms.
So, I guess another option might be to call VALGRIND_MAKE_MEM_DEFINED
on the buffer. "We know what we're doing, trust us!"
In some ways, that seems better than inserting a suppression, because
it only affects the memory in the buffer.
Anybody else want to express an opinion here?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tels | 2018-02-05 21:39:07 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
| Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2018-02-05 21:20:27 | Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.1 |