Horton

Re: Change GUC hashtable to use simplehash?

Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>

View thread
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com>, Ants Aasma <ants.aasma@cybertec.at>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com>, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2024-03-20T16:01:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Silence warning in older versions of Valgrind

  2. Revert "Speed up tail processing when hashing aligned C strings, take two"

  3. Speed up tail processing when hashing aligned C strings, take two

  4. Teach fasthash_accum to use platform endianness for bytewise loads

  5. Add macro to disable address safety instrumentation

  6. Convert uses of hash_string_pointer to fasthash equivalent

  7. Speed up tail processing when hashing aligned C strings

  8. Add helper functions for dshash tables with string keys.

  9. Fix warnings in cpluspluscheck

  10. Further cosmetic review of hashfn_unstable.h

  11. Simplify initialization of incremental hash state

  12. Add optimized C string hashing

  13. Add inline incremental hash functions for in-memory use

  14. Make all Perl warnings fatal

On Wed, 2024-03-20 at 14:26 +0700, John Naylor wrote:
> This was the culprit. The search path cache didn't trigger this when
> it went in, but it seems for frontend a read past the end of malloc
> fails -fsantize=address. By the same token, I'm guessing the only
> reason this didn't fail for backend is because almost all strings
> you'd want to use as a hash key won't use a malloc'd external block.
> 
> I found that adding __attribute__((no_sanitize_address)) to
> fasthash_accum_cstring_aligned() passes CI. While this kind of
> exception is warned against (for good reason), I think it's fine here
> given that glibc and NetBSD, and probably others, do something
> similar
> for optimized strlen(). Before I write the proper macro for that, are
> there any objections? Better ideas?

It appears that the spelling no_sanitize_address is deprecated in
clang[1] in favor of 'no_sanitize("address")'. It doesn't appear to be
deprecated in gcc[2].

Aside from that, +1.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis

[1]
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AddressSanitizer.html#disabling-instrumentation-with-attribute-no-sanitize-address
[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html