Re: seawasp failing, maybe in glibc allocator

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Looking at their release schedule on https://llvm.org/, I see we have
> a gamble to make. They currently plan to cut RC1 at the end of July,
> and to release in late September (every second LLVM major release
> coincides approximately with a PG major release). Option 1: wait
> until we branch for 14, and then push this to master so that at least
> seawasp can get back to looking for new problems, and then back-patch
> only after they release (presumably in time for our November
> releases). If their API change sticks, PostgreSQL crashes and gives
> weird results with the initial release of LLVM 13 until our fix comes
> out. Option 2: get ahead of their release and get this into 14 +
> August back branch releases based on their current/RC behaviour. If
> they decide to revert the change before the final release, we'll leak
> symbol names because we hold an extra reference, until we can fix
> that.

If that's an accurate characterization of the tradeoff, I have little
difficulty in voting for #2. A crash is strictly worse than a memory
leak. Besides which, I've heard little indication that they might
revert.

regards, tom lane