Thank you Tom, Thank you Amit.
Regards,
Muhammad Asif Naeem
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila writes:
> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> It's not a false alarm, unfortunately, because chkpass_in actually does
> >> give different results from
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's not a false alarm, unfortunately, because chkpass_in actually does
>> give different results from one call to the next. We could fix the aspect
>> of that involving failing to zero out unused bytes (which it appears
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Asif Naeem writes:
> > It is been observed on RANDOMIZE_ALLOCATED_MEMORY enabled PG95 build
that
> > chkpass is failing because of uninitialized memory and seems showing
false
> > alarm.
>
> It's not a false alarm, unfortunately, because chkpa
Asif Naeem writes:
> It is been observed on RANDOMIZE_ALLOCATED_MEMORY enabled PG95 build that
> chkpass is failing because of uninitialized memory and seems showing false
> alarm.
It's not a false alarm, unfortunately, because chkpass_in actually does
give different results from one call to the
