Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iGGVp-0001Z3-JL for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 05:52:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iGGVn-0004oR-Vk for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 05:52:19 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iGGVn-0004oF-O5 for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 05:52:19 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iGGVg-0002lt-QD for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 05:52:19 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x945q7EI018354; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 01:52:07 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Andres Freund cc: exclusion@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #16037: Assertion fails in varbit_out In-reply-to: <20191004054241.x4cfcu4qnaucggf3@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <16037-1d1ebca564db54f4@postgresql.org> <17708.1570167288@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20191004054241.x4cfcu4qnaucggf3@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund message dated "Thu, 03 Oct 2019 22:42:41 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <18352.1570168327.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 01:52:07 -0400 Message-ID: <18353.1570168327@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Andres Freund writes: > On 2019-10-04 01:34:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> D'oh ... bitshiftright() needs to do the zero-pad-fixup in both >> code paths. Will fix it tomorrow. > Does that suggest we shouldn't make the asserts active in the branches < > 12? No, it just means the previous patch was an incomplete fix. The whole point of the asserts was to flush out cases where we weren't padding correctly, and they just did that :-) (Besides which, we discourage people from running with asserts on in production, so I don't quite see what your concern is.) regards, tom lane