Hello.
I tried the test in PostgreSQL9.0 beta4.
And it never reproduces the EvalPlanQual recheck error!
Thank you for all reply!!
>> When I tested in PostgreSQL9 beta3,I got an error.
>>
>
>> ==
>> select * from part_bug where HIRENUM=4 for
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 5586
Logged by: franklyn
Email address: ff-ferr...@hotmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 8.4.4
Operating system: windows 7
Description:network installation
Details:
Output folder: C:\Program Files (x86)\RVG Software
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 5587
Logged by: Mike Parfitt
Email address: m_parf...@hotmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 8.4.4.1
Operating system: Windows XP SP3
Description:Installer non-default file association problem
Details:
When the insta
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 5588
Logged by: runner.mei
Email address: runner@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 8.4.4
Operating system: windows
Description:I use a lot of the "INHERITS", results of tests found
that the performance is very l
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 5590
Logged by: John Regehr
Email address: reg...@cs.utah.edu
PostgreSQL version: head 8/2/10
Operating system: OSX
Description:undefined shift behavior
Details:
During a "make check" the left-shift operator a
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 5591
Logged by: Divyaprakash
Email address: divyaprakas...@celstream.com
PostgreSQL version: postgresql-8.4.
Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Version 2002 Service
Pack 3
Description:Creating a
"John Regehr" writes:
> Bug reference: 5590
> Logged by: John Regehr
> Email address: reg...@cs.utah.edu
> PostgreSQL version: head 8/2/10
> Operating system: OSX
> Description:undefined shift behavior
> Details:
> During a "make check" the left-shift operator at tsq
"Divyaprakash" wrote:
> I am unable to create the databases after the successful
> installation of postgresql. please help me as early as possible.
We need more information before we can be much help. Please read
this and post again on the pgsql-general list. It really doesn't
sound like a b
Hi Tom,
One of my students has hacked Clang to detect integer undefined
behaviors in C, like this shift problem or signed overflows. This was
the only problem that came up during a "make check" of a postgresql with
this checking turned on, which is pretty cool.
I'd expect to be able to find more
John Regehr writes:
> On 08/02/2010 09:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> John: how did you detect this?
> One of my students has hacked Clang to detect integer undefined
> behaviors in C, like this shift problem or signed overflows.
Cool.
> This was
> the only problem that came up during a "make check"
Hrm, I'd have expected you to see a few integer overflows during the
regression tests --- we do test that the overflow checks in places
like int4pl work.
I saw no signed overflows. Our patch still has some rough edges, but
this part is pretty well tested.
Perhaps the int4pl checks fire befor
Tom, on the list you said:
"I would be ecstatic if we could write
int4pl like this:
if (sum_overflows(arg1, arg2))
elog(ERROR, "overflow");
else
return arg1 + arg2;
"
This is effectively what our clang patch does (automatically, for all
integer o
Aha-- the -fwrapv flag (which I had though was a nop) screws up our
checks. Another rough edge to fix. Removing this flag caused us to
find a bunch of integer overflows. I'll start reporting them later today.
John
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make chang
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 5592
Logged by: John Regehr
Email address: reg...@cs.utah.edu
PostgreSQL version: head 8/1/10
Operating system: OSX
Description:list of integer undefined behaviors
Details:
Below: a list of integer undefined b
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:16 PM, John Regehr wrote:
> : Op: -, Reason : Signed Subtraction Overflow,
> BINARY OPERATION: left (int32): 2147483644 right (int32): -2147483648
>
> : Op: -, Reason : Signed Subtraction Overflow,
> BINARY OPERATION: left (int32): 2147483644 right (int32): -2147483648
>
I wrote:
> "John Regehr" writes:
>> During a "make check" the left-shift operator at tsquery_util.c 48:18 is
>> passed a negative right-hand argument a number of times.
> Hmm. valcrc is declared as signed int32, so depending on what your
> compiler thinks the semantics of % is, this clearly can
Greg Stark writes:
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:16 PM, John Regehr wrote:
>> : Op: -, Reason : Signed Subtraction Overflow,
>> BINARY OPERATION: left (int32): 2147483644 right (int32): -2147483648
>>
>> : Op: -, Reason : Signed Subtraction Overflow,
>> BINARY OPERATION: left (int32): 2147483644
Greg Stark writes:
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:16 PM, John Regehr wrote:
>> : Op: -, Reason : Signed Subtraction Overflow,
>> BINARY OPERATION: left (int32): 2147483644 right (int32): -2147483648
>>
>> : Op: -, Reason : Signed Subtraction Overflow,
>> BINARY OPERATION: left (int32): 2147483644
18 matches
Mail list logo
