| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Avoid incorrect allocation in buildIndexArray |
| Date: | 2020-09-12 10:40:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_adi25OfjAOnDYA_gJA9YJzPeEh6+dwb4B1gNPMW4J5PQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le sam. 12 sept. 2020 à 11:14, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> a
écrit :
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 01:49:26PM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 1:39 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
> wrote:
> >> Any reason not to bail early as per the attached?
> >
> > +1
>
> Makes sense to me. This has also the advantage to cause a crash if
> there is an attempt to refer to those empty arrays in case of future
> refactoring, which is rather defensive. By looking at
> findObjectByOid(), I can also see that we check for a negative number,
>
yes, I also checked that current code is already checking for that.
so I concur with Ranier's comment to check after that on top of 0.
> If there are no objections, I'll apply that on HEAD.
agreed.
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-09-12 11:40:29 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-09-12 09:13:56 | Re: Avoid incorrect allocation in buildIndexArray |