From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Memory bug in dsnowball_lexize |
Date: | 2019-05-23 16:06:22 |
Message-ID: | 13263.1558627582@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:46 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> In src/backend/snowball/dict_snowball.c, 'dsnowball_lexize'
>>> calls 'SN_set_current' and ignores the return value, thereby
>>> failing to notice the error, if any.
>> Hm. This seems like possibly a bug, in that even if we cover the
>> malloc issue, there's no API guarantee that OOM is the only possible
>> reason for reporting failure.
> Ok, that sounds fair. Since the memory is being palloc'd, I suppose
> it would be safe to just ereport when the return value is -1?
Yeah ... I'd just make it an elog really, since whatever it is
would presumably not be a user-facing error.
>> Fair complaint --- do you want to propose some new wording that
>> references what header.h does?
> Perhaps something along these lines?
Seems reasonable, please include in patch covering the other thing.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2019-05-23 16:10:35 | Question about BarrierAttach spinlock |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-23 16:02:18 | Re: Why could GEQO produce plans with lower costs than the standard_join_search? |