public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Melanie Plageman <[email protected]>
To: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrey Borodin <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
Cc: Kirill Reshke <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: eliminate xl_heap_visible to reduce WAL (and eventually set VM on-access)
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2025 11:07:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAKRu_bHpHthLdBrvLGhJsTLLe6zkPk5Q9pnBLrOdObUBZiwDg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CAAKRu_YX0NP_yhXvPnvDRjVxxprsRBM-_MZzAJskfMydMQ=ETA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoYgCs=SEsohP6Z6R3KKsGaqFqvqxH8vQ_-nY4t+7rK8jg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAKRu_ZP-3=SaZykpwDBMJOdUKyW3Wm5JZfPFRR3L5Ac8ouq4w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAKRu_bgkOQqu3K5n4YLRsNBZqJ9Rjg80ROqgKSr2UGz4b5hUg@mail.gmail.com>
<2wk7jo4m4qwh5sn33pfgerdjfujebbccsmmlownybddbh6nawl@mdyyqpqzxjek>
<CAAKRu_YR-COJ9aGnMUQqt5yoWmUBjikqrd4jGNZYouHaXpis9g@mail.gmail.com>
<CALdSSPhiCwJwWwgJP1NmqRmnp9RS2tGOBY0gQrfLCbB+OS5_KQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAKRu_YS+Ocm=OzMaZnG4egFiE9v4VYfZ25DXd6jbwegqmGYbQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAKRu_ZGZSqhGt-RcmmfiSheC+1fjQdxy6_+oM-1jMn8hyVptQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CALdSSPg+B8RTzTXhJvCcKJBqgzhPZkq0E2oqxQdv74ZNZOMVzg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAKRu_Zha7HcdQBv8tTtQrcry5332J6kHnOc1X=TT03LzUXDow@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAKRu_amF00f2T_H8N6pbbe75C22EeX1OqA=svpj8LNO1sdUuw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAAKRu_bsDnYW-8PLncPvqb5ndcUriCL9pBdimNkYWTQV4sxO-A@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 7:18 AM Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You are not modifying deadoffsets in prune_freeze_setup(), but you are
> assigning its address to a pointer variable that is not const-qualified,
> and so it could be used to modify it later on.
>
> A caller to prune_freeze_setup() that sees the signature const
> PruneFreezeResult *presult could pass a pointer to a PruneFreezeResult
> object that is notionally in read-only memory. But through the
> non-const-qualified pointer you could later modify the pointed-to
> memory, which would be invalid. The point of propagating the qualifiers
> is to prevent that at compile time.
Thanks for the explanation. I've committed your proposed fix.
- Melanie
view thread (143+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: eliminate xl_heap_visible to reduce WAL (and eventually set VM on-access)
In-Reply-To: <CAAKRu_bHpHthLdBrvLGhJsTLLe6zkPk5Q9pnBLrOdObUBZiwDg@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox