| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Melih Mutlu <m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parent/child context relation in pg_get_backend_memory_contexts() |
| Date: | 2024-07-28 21:19:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvqOJmTiSMxpheVcQuTKRefHJ5wFV0Oh9VtGbcE03Vfpdg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 04:31, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> It is not clear to me exactly which of these pointers should be
> presumed to be possibly-null, but certainly testing ident after
> storing through it is pretty pointless. Maybe what was intended
> was
>
> - if (ident && strcmp(*name, "dynahash") == 0)
> + if (*name && strcmp(*name, "dynahash") == 0)
It should be *ident. I just missed adding the pointer dereference when
moving that code to a function.
Thanks for the report. I'll fix shortly.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-07-28 21:24:29 | Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects |
| Previous Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2024-07-28 20:03:56 | Re: Pluggable cumulative statistics |