On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 7:24 PM Andrzej Hunt <andrzej@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > + } else {
> > + oidread(&old_id, ref.value.val1);
> > + }
>
> This seems to assume that 'ref.value_type == REFTABLE_REF_VAL1' - but do
> we expect to have to handle the other types
> (REFTABLE_REF_VAL2/REFTABLE_REF_SYMREF)? When I run tests in seen
> against ASAN I see the following errors in t0031, which suggests we're
> running this code against REFTABLE_REF_SYMREF too - but I don't know if
> that means that this code should be able to handle the other ref types
> or if there's a bug higher up the stack. (AFAIUI REFTABLE_REF_DELETION
> is already handled because reftable_table_read_ref() already returns 1
> for deletion, but the other cases seem valid?)
Curious. I didn't know it was supported to create symrefs in a
transaction, but I've added an assert to make sure this doesn't
trigger any sanitizers.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - Google Munich
I work 80%. Don't expect answers from me on Fridays.
--
Google Germany GmbH, Erika-Mann-Strasse 33, 80636 Munich
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado
