Re: Some memory allocations in gin fastupdate code are a bit brain dead

From: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Some memory allocations in gin fastupdate code are a bit brain dead
Date: 2018-12-19 22:08:30
Message-ID: CAKJS1f-drmq7rPcF-NMgGMxbGtBZPsZeJ=SEFLHXyJqmViqW+A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 05:44, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I don't think this is quite bulletproof against overflow, especially
> in view of the rather careless mixing of int32 and uint32 variables
> that exists here. The easiest way to make it bulletproof is to add
> an explicit test, so I did that and pushed it.

Thanks for tidying that up and for pushing.

--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2018-12-19 22:28:17 Re: Why are we PageInit'ing buffers in RelationAddExtraBlocks()?
Previous Message David Rowley 2018-12-19 22:07:50 Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans