On 12/15/18 12:32 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 12/14/18 4:35 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> On 12/14/18 4:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> ... >>> >>> In general, I'm not particularly on board with our valgrind.supp >>> carrying suppressions for code outside our own code base: I think >>> that's assuming WAY too much about which version of what is installed >>> on a particular box. >>> >> Fair point. >> >>> Maybe we could do something to make it simpler to have custom >>> suppressions? Not sure what, though. >>> >> I was thinking that perhaps we could allows specifying path to extra >> suppressions and pass that to valgrind. >> >> But we don't actually invoke valgrind, that's something people do on >> their own anyway - so we don't have anywhere to pass the path to. And >> whoever invokes valgrind can simply stick it directly into the command >> they're using (as it allows specifying multiple --suppressions=<file> >> options). Or perhaps just put it into ~/.valgrindrc. >> >> So perhaps we should simply revert that commit and be done with it. >> >> One place that will need to solve it is buildfarm client, but it could >> pick either of the options I mentioned. >> >> > > The buildfarm client has a parameter in the config file for valgrind > options. All you would have to do is an an extra --suppressions setting > in there. >
OK, makes sense. I'll revert the commit tomorrow. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
