> On 17 Apr 2025, at 01:12, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 04:19:02PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> Agreed, while it's perfectly safe today the end method should not make
>>> assumptions about the use of the private_data pointer upon return and shoul
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 04:19:02PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> Agreed, while it's perfectly safe today the end method should not make
>> assumptions about the use of the private_data pointer upon return and should
>> leave it set to NULL.
> Indeed. I was just loo
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 04:19:02PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Agreed, while it's perfectly safe today the end method should not make
> assumptions about the use of the private_data pointer upon return and should
> leave it set to NULL.
Indeed. I was just looking at applying what Alexander
> On 16 Apr 2025, at 13:48, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 1:57 PM Alexander Kuznetsov
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> We've found that EndCompressorZstd() doesn't set cs->private_data to NULL
>> after pg_free(),
>> unlike other EndCompressor implementations.
>> While
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 1:57 PM Alexander Kuznetsov
wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> We've found that EndCompressorZstd() doesn't set cs->private_data to NULL
> after pg_free(),
> unlike other EndCompressor implementations.
> While this doesn't currently cause issues (as the pointer soon gets
> re
