Memory error in src/backend/replication/logical/origin.c
Hackers,
bool nulls[Natts_pg_replication_origin];
...
memset(&nulls, 0, sizeof(nulls));
around lines 277 through 303. Patch below.
mark
diff --git a/src/backend/replication/logical/origin.c b/src/backend/replication/logical/origin.c
index 55382b4b24..88188bd190 100644
--- a/src/backend/replication/logical/origin.c
+++ b/src/backend/replication/logical/origin.c
@@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ replorigin_create(char *roname)
* Ok, found an unused roident, insert the new row and do a CCI,
* so our callers can look it up if they want to.
*/
- memset(&nulls, 0, sizeof(nulls));
+ memset(nulls, 0, sizeof(nulls)); values[Anum_pg_replication_origin_roident - 1] = ObjectIdGetDatum(roident);
values[Anum_pg_replication_origin_roname - 1] = roname_d;
Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com> writes:
bool nulls[Natts_pg_replication_origin];
memset(&nulls, 0, sizeof(nulls));
around lines 277 through 303. Patch below.
AFAIK this is not a bug, though I agree that dropping the "&" is probably
better style. The reason is that applying "&" to an undecorated array
name is basically a no-op, because without "&" the array name would decay
to a pointer anyway. With "&", the address-taking is explicit, but you
still get a pointer to the array, not a pointer to some pointer to the
array. Ain't C fun?
regards, tom lane
On Nov 26, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com> writes:
bool nulls[Natts_pg_replication_origin];
memset(&nulls, 0, sizeof(nulls));around lines 277 through 303. Patch below.
AFAIK this is not a bug, though I agree that dropping the "&" is probably
better style. The reason is that applying "&" to an undecorated array
name is basically a no-op, because without "&" the array name would decay
to a pointer anyway. With "&", the address-taking is explicit, but you
still get a pointer to the array, not a pointer to some pointer to the
array. Ain't C fun?
Thanks for the refresher on C madness.
mark