Re: tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument

Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>

From: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>, hlinnaka <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-02-01T05:59:58Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> [ in the service of closing out this thread... ]
>
> Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes:
>> Finally, 0003-* is a Valgrind suppression borrowed from my parallel
>> CREATE INDEX patch. It's self-explanatory.
>
> Um, I didn't find it all that self-explanatory.  Why wouldn't we want
> to avoid writing undefined data?  I think the comment at least needs
> to explain exactly what part of the written data might be uninitialized.
> And I'd put the comment into valgrind.supp, too, not in the commit msg.
>
> Also, the suppression seems far too broad.  It would for instance
> block any complaint about a write() invoked via an elog call from
> any function invoked from any LogicalTape* function, no matter
> how far removed.

It seems like a new patch will be provided, so moved to next CF with
"waiting on author".
-- 
Michael


Commits

  1. Fix duplicated words in comment.

  2. Remove should_free arguments to tuplesort routines.

  3. Fix use-after-free around DISTINCT transition function calls.