From: | Georgios <gkokolatos(at)protonmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Using Valgrind to detect faulty buffer accesses (no pin or buffer content lock held) |
Date: | 2020-07-22 07:57:31 |
Message-ID: | EY-r5luJpAHxpbphMAhaNWRMqYjODEcd91Zpa2RrcCzE8jgtyBwctmaXZgTz8KkP5XICls_HiWshFSiFss9alM7wXZs1CjXgimrc5z0t4lM=@protonmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 11:52 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 1:35 AM Georgios Kokolatos
> gkokolatos(at)protonmail(dot)com wrote:
>
> > As a general overview, the series of patches in the mail thread do match their description. The addition of the stricter, explicit use of instrumentation does improve the design as the distinction of the use cases requiring a pin or a lock is made more clear. The added commentary is descriptive and appears grammatically correct, at least to a non native speaker.
>
> I didn't see this review until now because it ended up in gmail's spam
> folder. :-(
>
> Thanks for taking a look at it!
No worries at all. It happens and it was beneficial for me to read the patch.
//Georgios
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2020-07-22 08:18:07 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead |
Previous Message | torikoshia | 2020-07-22 07:49:53 | Re: Is it useful to record whether plans are generic or custom? |