Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([2a02:16a8:dc51::56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fwFAj-0002k5-3q for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2018 23:19:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fwFAh-0004TT-7H for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2018 23:19:15 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fwFAf-0004TK-Fz for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2018 23:19:15 +0000 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fwFAb-0004nS-BS for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2018 23:19:12 +0000 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F6D21B10; Sat, 1 Sep 2018 19:19:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 01 Sep 2018 19:19:07 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paquier.xyz; h= cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; bh=OOEAfnkhFVJ85L4ITQGwMNiHlzul2/YMZmRH2SeCVzM=; b=YMyF1JRp qS4dldKDBCGRaTZnxYhQzNLfDrxyrftwHwxHbxNIpmtD15rIe9QYasY5Hy6OoJyj yyxhYqb5sHcawLFqL57m7RhbCXIL4Yk9UZTQGV5KUUnqOaK7vkUWrJlooSRJDnd1 VAdbbqNBlCj/re3iDXvxUFLMwxzr3Fc5CaD14aHmwuFqWURb+YVCMdthN5k1eonG NHuaUE+dl/3Zgy4Xb4YT82krvHLqIorLvl0zvayE4Zc8W4OR4fdckV0Q8iO852Ua 6zOG/brlYvtHzTAWApp8ANiw8t+XP7vt5SW9BdrlD1DOS3gtJpcnNuPCNQaBbTFw Ked7rlA51NSJhw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=OOEAfnkhFVJ85L4ITQGwMNiHlzul2 /YMZmRH2SeCVzM=; b=GhUHfg+jLVX+BZbty684/0wHuH9RHbNh7mUVAObCguMjw MxMeApPsIbDDq4OEWgxC0sfufuppgTyOTiOuCKbBYxTueR+Cri6/nUHfUq4w/aLS D1iq/eR7qetkZjwZfSvlIptIcuJE5hw4rSPGTtdHZ1nxLZn8fti6Exxc5NIEPzCE p9YDFr8qwm8WfVUAqwLiXnPnhh+Cl618TeoaL9O/2LrdgUQz4XGRBgzSpPN2r1+h VRu0fvk2nqaY0ZH4A8DGv1Ocm5CrhVExIr6kJLrkkLIZenGLxqFm7eVWF7GlJr64 vvzp0r43STuVBwHu/GY4SMVuTOQdLue4nI+18f3sA== X-ME-Proxy: X-ME-Sender: Received: from paquier.xyz (unknown [66.201.48.83]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9CB9510288; Sat, 1 Sep 2018 19:19:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2018 16:19:00 -0700 From: Michael Paquier To: Tom Lane Cc: Fabien COELHO , Michael Banck , pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing Message-ID: <20180901231900.GF5305@paquier.xyz> References: <7321.1535639966@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20180830175652.GC15446@paquier.xyz> <12123.1535672257@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20180831000600.GI15446@paquier.xyz> <28226.1535727306@sss.pgh.pa.us> <21037.1535745351@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20180831222119.GD5305@paquier.xyz> <15258.1535759998@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20180901003303.GE5305@paquier.xyz> <12600.1535830330@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/i8j2F0k9BYX4qLc" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <12600.1535830330@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk --/i8j2F0k9BYX4qLc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 03:32:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Fair enough. I renamed the types as suggested, changed a few more > places for consistency's sake, and pushed. Thanks! > There still remain some places where palloc(BLCKSZ) or equivalent is used, > but there's no matching pfree. In a lot of them the buffer is returned > to the caller so there's no choice. It's likely that some are just > leaking the storage transiently and we could convert them to using a > PGAlignedBlock local variable, but I didn't bother trying to do the > analysis. At quick glance, I am not seeing anything critical. So the result looks good to me. -- Michael --/i8j2F0k9BYX4qLc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEG72nH6vTowiyblFKnvQgOdbyQH0FAluLHmQACgkQnvQgOdby QH0S5BAAmo6f+oiWNPq485gtkuDqg8A1EHqv04xR54RcuhavfENQ8Iq6cTCuWRfa ttdrfna7r17SVtQVe+Luxs6jaXylJq0FajlVomaj47UEeRYI4pF/YcG6zwGPjdIT bx7p3wsO1ZSfsXN2m14G45fuA143L1HhasWAUVIfJc8Njhd4A9R1Tw7oTIYUbhF5 wVKv8+01f9GqbdViKl7aC7cnzhBfiI2qRQ9zRbS2c4OyprA/JaphcflP3CE1vvTl xTXNDHP+YBrZEIjBd3GWGg4f2yvhQt6hEYXegXizKr6LlXE6vPCHy+U5jsvxO5L6 pn7Pk+WG4stV9Uv0UPhH1lYPp1CsKZ/DCVyOIOnzZELNES+67WaqfEGa/FRVlWSx sBmLhNwLvYk/N8bT6H/ajW+ImVH+WaQlflIDobEW7rMv71ls2S2k472fvngtJbEZ e4DH4G21goT4ObRNpV+zr2q5mFojEBU2MvL15vEVqNGj/F2Ux1RmDnIY7xN7Fnes pzFnwnP5ze2Z7XxXdqAGGIAbVV9OpHPAlnDwIhYyuVVH+FgI4uLzC5UWz+meyKyg VCYpbLyLF8U5dcXrSUk0HhP6GOrbvyN6mvgC3vdHnyCeX562K85CWALzqqzxLPck oCn4mEZzaX/WGnH/jBqVTxbai5FS/OWt8upIXbxRjVPxq8eJE3U= =/fts -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/i8j2F0k9BYX4qLc--