Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kVhWd-0000aB-NU for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 20:49:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kVhWb-0007Sr-Ud for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 20:49:29 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kVhWb-0007Sj-Nj for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 20:49:29 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kVhWZ-0006XR-Ih for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 20:49:28 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 09MKnGkm042433; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 16:49:16 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Mark Dilger cc: Robert Haas , Peter Geoghegan , "Andrey M. Borodin" , Stephen Frost , Michael Paquier , Amul Sul , Dilip Kumar , Andres Freund , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: new heapcheck contrib module In-reply-to: <845CE380-9DCE-4625-AD43-C680E690A617@enterprisedb.com> References: <12ED3DA8-25F0-4B68-937D-D907CFBF08E7@enterprisedb.com> <20200420194210.sevnpi4lyghoanxi@alap3.anarazel.de> <23E60C3C-C20A-4508-84AC-E0CEA59E784A@enterprisedb.com> <5F743835-3399-419C-8324-2D424237E999@enterprisedb.com> <885D2EC9-7D06-4903-A17D-72C184A1E1C5@enterprisedb.com> <5CC85F28-F210-47AC-8DA8-EC4E82AF3FD5@enterprisedb.com> <0C0349EB-DD85-4DA8-82C7-DF70AB714592@enterprisedb.com> <9DF93B83-FE46-4EC4-A99D-77A60729FD2D@enterprisedb.com> <50F6468F-5A5E-412A-86EC-DF24B549D733@enterprisedb.com> <7D603B53-8078-4AF0-851B-803FF4416501@enterprisedb.com> <98265AA9-7BDC-4708-9348-CC1B173BBE1D@enterprisedb.com> <209783.1603313248@sss.pgh.pa.us> <77A60E99-6054-40FD-A5D6-769C287D4A0F@enterprisedb.com> <721BFA83-EA6F-463D-A9DF-CE78A318B73A@enterprisedb.com> <2A7DA1A8-C4AA-43DF-A985-3CA52F4DC775@enterprisedb.com> <<40724.16033973 Comments: In-reply-to Mark Dilger message dated "Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:39:15 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <42431.1603399756.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 16:49:16 -0400 Message-ID: <42432.1603399756@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Mark Dilger writes: >> On Oct 22, 2020, at 1:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hm, but why are we seeing the failure only on specific machine >> architectures? sparc64 and ppc32 is a weird pairing, too. > It is seeking to position 32 and writing '\x77\x77\x77\x77'. x86_64 is > little-endian, and ppc32 and sparc64 are both big-endian, right? They are, but that should not meaningfully affect the results of that corruption step. You zapped only one line pointer not several, but it would look the same regardless of endiannness. I find it more plausible that we might see the bad effects of the uninitialized variable only on those arches --- but that theory is still pretty shaky, since you'd think compiler choices about register or stack-location assignment would be the controlling factor, and those should be all over the map. regards, tom lane