On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 3:05 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:51 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Michael Paquier writes:
> > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 01:17:57AM +, Hou, Zhijie wrote:
> > Thanks. I am thinking to backpatch this even though there is no
> > problem rep
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:51 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 01:17:57AM +, Hou, Zhijie wrote:
> Thanks. I am thinking to backpatch this even though there is no
> problem reported from any production system. What do you think?
>
> > text_to
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 01:17:57AM +, Hou, Zhijie wrote:
Thanks. I am thinking to backpatch this even though there is no
problem reported from any production system. What do you think?
> text_to_cstring() indeed allocates a new string, so the extra
> alloca
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 01:17:57AM +, Hou, Zhijie wrote:
>>> Thanks. I am thinking to backpatch this even though there is no
>>> problem reported from any production system. What do you think?
>>
>> No objections from me.
>
> +1
text_to_cstring() indeed allocates a new string, so the extra
a
> >>> Your observation seems correct to me, though I have not tried to
> >>> test your patch.
> >>
> >> +1 to apply, this looks correct and passes tests. Scanning around I
> >> +didn't see
> >> any other occurrences of the same pattern.
> >
> > Thanks. I am thinking to backpatch this even though t
> On 13 Jan 2021, at 14:09, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 2:55 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 Jan 2021, at 07:10, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>>> Your observation seems correct to me, though I have not tried to test
>>> your patch.
>>
>> +1 to apply, this looks correct a
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 2:55 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 13 Jan 2021, at 07:10, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > Your observation seems correct to me, though I have not tried to test
> > your patch.
>
> +1 to apply, this looks correct and passes tests. Scanning around I didn't
> see
> any othe
> On 13 Jan 2021, at 07:10, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Your observation seems correct to me, though I have not tried to test
> your patch.
+1 to apply, this looks correct and passes tests. Scanning around I didn't see
any other occurrences of the same pattern.
cheers ./daniel
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 8:11 AM Hou, Zhijie wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> In function fetch_table_list, it get the table names from publicer and return
> a list of tablenames.
> When append the name to the list, it use the following code:
>
> **
> nspname = TextDatumGetCString(slot_getattr(slot, 1, &
Hi
In function fetch_table_list, it get the table names from publicer and return a
list of tablenames.
When append the name to the list, it use the following code:
**
nspname = TextDatumGetCString(slot_getattr(slot, 1, &isnull));
Assert(!isnull);
relname = TextDatumGetCSt
10 matches
Mail list logo