| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Seltenreich <andreas(dot)seltenreich(at)credativ(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <christoph(dot)berg(at)credativ(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <bernd(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.3.9 and pg_multixact corruption |
| Date: | 2015-09-28 15:10:52 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaCJHJnugETyDJBuW+W42kdh=ZUtt+yvoWisjHJxY3Kww@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Andreas Seltenreich
<andreas(dot)seltenreich(at)credativ(dot)de> wrote:
> I think the intention was to make configure complain if there's a -O > 2
> in CFLAGS.
-1 on that idea. I really don't think that we should categorically
decide we don't support higher optimization levels. If the compiler
has a bug, then the compiler manufacturer should fix it, and it's not
our fault. If the compiler doesn't have a bug and our stuff is
blowing up, then we have a bug and should fix it. I suppose there
could be some grey area but hopefully not too much.
> OTOH, a unit test for multixact.c that exercises the code including
> wraparounds sounds like a desirable thing regardless of the fact that it
> could have caught this miscompilation earlier than 6 months into
> production.
Definitely.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-09-28 15:13:15 | Re: GIN vacuum bug |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-09-28 15:08:09 | Re: CustomScan support on readfuncs.c |