From: | Jelte Fennema <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
---|---|
To: | Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Should we use MemSet or {0} for struct initialization? |
Date: | 2023-09-01 12:47:56 |
Message-ID: | CAGECzQR9LBC0emeHUj7H5DZHVN8wsOSuOSMJ50gHtxtwZk9YrQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 13:35, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > If the struct has padding or aligned, {0} only guarantee the struct
> > > members initialized to 0, while memset sets the alignment/padding
> > > to 0 as well, but since we will not access the alignment/padding, so
> > > they give the same effect.
> >
> > See above -- if it's used as a hash key, for example, you must clear everything.
>
> Yeah, if memcmp was used as the key comparison function, there is a problem.
The C standard says:
> When a value is stored in an object of structure or union type, including in a member object, the bytes of the object representation that correspond to any padding bytes take unspecified values.
So if you set any of the fields after a MemSet, the values of the
padding bytes that were set to 0 are now unspecified. It seems much
safer to actually spell out the padding fields of a hash key.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-09-01 12:49:52 | Re: Unlogged relations and WAL-logging |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-09-01 12:37:17 | Re: Move bki file pre-processing from initdb to bootstrap |