From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Mike Yeap <wkk1020(at)gmail(dot)com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: LDAP authenticated session terminated by signal 11: Segmentation fault, PostgresSQL server terminates other active server processes |
Date: | 2019-02-26 22:28:23 |
Message-ID: | 14938.1551220103@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:57 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> If pthread_is_threaded_np(), or something equivalent, is widely available
>> then it might be all right to try solving this going forward by switching
>> to libldap_r and seeing if anyone hits those cross-checks. I'd be afraid
>> to risk it in the back branches though ...
> Hmm. Well here is a new data point: it looks like the Red Hat family
> of distributions is in the process of making the same decision as
> Debian (namely: to expunge the non-MT variant, because it bites
> various projects in the same way that it bites us), but they haven't
> quite hasn't pulled the trigger yet:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OpenLDAPwithoutNonthreadedLibraries
Interesting, but that's going to be a very slow change. That says they'll
pull the trigger in Fedora 30, which I think is due to be released this
spring --- but it won't show up in RHEL till the next major release (8
or maybe even 9 at this point), and the existing major releases have got
10-year support lifespans.
> I don't see pthread_is_threaded_np() on any non-Apple systems in my
> lab.
Yeah, I thought that might be a Mac thing. I wonder if POSIX has any
usable equivalent.
> Clearly libdap_r is *capable* of creating threads: it contains a
> function ldap_pvt_thread_create(), and we can see that slapd and other
> OpenLDAP things use that, but AFAICT that's a private facility not
> intended for end users to call, so there's no danger if you just use
> the documented LDAP client API.
That seems promising, but I'd sure be happier if we could cross-check
that there's still just one thread at the completion of authentication.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-02-26 22:35:28 | Re: Channel binding not supported using scram-sha-256 passwords |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-02-26 21:32:30 | Re: LDAP authenticated session terminated by signal 11: Segmentation fault, PostgresSQL server terminates other active server processes |