| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification |
| Date: | 2018-03-29 00:59:05 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=6shV+jJmdSB0sHOpmF9bNz_ej-GM-1D2f23ODsVodtQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 5:47 AM, Pavan Deolasee
<pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Mostly a nitpick, but I guess we should leave a comment after
> IndexBuildHeapScan() saying heap_endscan() is not necessary since
> IndexBuildHeapScan() does that internally. I stumbled upon that while
> looking for any potential leaks. I know at least one other caller of
> IndexBuildHeapScan() doesn't bother to say anything either, but it's
> helpful.
Fair point. Again, I'm going to suggest deferring to the committer. I
seem to have decision fatigue this week.
> FWIW I also looked at the 0001 patch and it looks fine to me.
I'm grateful that you didn't feel any need to encourage me to use
whatever the novel/variant filter du jour is! :-)
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2018-03-29 00:59:56 | Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v12 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-03-29 00:50:21 | Re: Changing WAL Header to reduce contention during ReserveXLogInsertLocation() |