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 1fvUoU-0004v6-1z for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 21:49:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fvUoS-0006Gk-9g for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 21:49:12 +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_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fvUoS-0006Gd-2v for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 21:49:12 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fvUoP-0002nP-I1 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 21:49:11 +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 w7ULn4b4027420; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 17:49:04 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Magnus Hagander cc: Fabien COELHO , Michael Banck , pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing In-reply-to: References: <1535618100.1286.3.camel@credativ.de> <7321.1535639966@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Magnus Hagander message dated "Thu, 30 Aug 2018 21:35:33 +0200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <27418.1535665744.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 17:49:04 -0400 Message-ID: <27419.1535665744@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Magnus Hagander writes: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 4:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> (The right fix, of course, is to malloc the work buffer rather than >> put it on the stack.) > So if I get you right, you're saying the attached patch should be all > that's needed? Well, that's some of what's needed. I notice this code is also being sloppy about whether block numbers are signed or unsigned, which means it'd probably misbehave on relations exceeding 2^31 blocks. I have a patch in progress to clean all that up, though I'm still working on the strict-aliasing part. regards, tom lane