Avoid memcpy() with same source and destination during relmapper init.
A narrow reading of the C standard says that memcpy(x,x,n) is undefined,
although it's hard to envision an implementation that would really
misbehave. However, analysis tools such as valgrind might whine about
this; accordingl
Avoid memcpy() with same source and destination during relmapper init.
A narrow reading of the C standard says that memcpy(x,x,n) is undefined,
although it's hard to envision an implementation that would really
misbehave. However, analysis tools such as valgrind might whine about
this; accordingl
Avoid memcpy() with same source and destination during relmapper init.
A narrow reading of the C standard says that memcpy(x,x,n) is undefined,
although it's hard to envision an implementation that would really
misbehave. However, analysis tools such as valgrind might whine about
this; accordingl
Avoid memcpy() with same source and destination during relmapper init.
A narrow reading of the C standard says that memcpy(x,x,n) is undefined,
although it's hard to envision an implementation that would really
misbehave. However, analysis tools such as valgrind might whine about
this; accordingl
Avoid memcpy() with same source and destination during relmapper init.
A narrow reading of the C standard says that memcpy(x,x,n) is undefined,
although it's hard to envision an implementation that would really
misbehave. However, analysis tools such as valgrind might whine about
this; accordingl
Avoid memcpy() with same source and destination during relmapper init.
A narrow reading of the C standard says that memcpy(x,x,n) is undefined,
although it's hard to envision an implementation that would really
misbehave. However, analysis tools such as valgrind might whine about
this; accordingl
Avoid memcpy() with same source and destination during relmapper init.
A narrow reading of the C standard says that memcpy(x,x,n) is undefined,
although it's hard to envision an implementation that would really
misbehave. However, analysis tools such as valgrind might whine about
this; accordingl
Add a couple of missed .gitignore entries.
Any subdirectory that's ignoring /output_iso/ should also
ignore /tmp_check_iso/, which could be left behind by a
failed pg_isolation_regress_check run.
I think these have been wrong for awhile, but it doesn't
seem important to fix in back branches.
Bra
Update comment atop of ReorderBufferQueueMessage().
The comments atop of this function describes behaviour in case of a
transactional WAL message only, but it accepts both transactional and
non-transactional WAL messages. Update the comments to describe
behaviour in case of non-transactional WAL m
