On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 7:24 PM Andrzej Hunt [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+             } 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