From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: plperl sigfpe reset can crash the server |
Date: | 2012-09-05 17:32:13 |
Message-ID: | 201209051932.13607.andres@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wednesday, September 05, 2012 07:15:52 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Sunday, August 26, 2012 06:10:02 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> >> On Saturday, August 25, 2012 06:38:09 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Surely that's breaking perl's expectations, to more or less the same
> >>> degree they're breaking ours?
> >>
> >> In the referenced bug they agree that this is the way forward.
> >
> > As nobody has any better ideas here is a patch doing that:
> OK. Do we want to commit this now, or wait till after 9.2.0?
> My feeling is it's probably okay to include in 9.2.0, but I can see
> that somebody might want to argue not to. Any objections out there?
Perhaps unsurprisingly I would argue for including it. I am not saying its a
perfect solution, but not bandaiding seems to open a bigger hole/DOS. Given
that any occurance of SIGFPE inside perl on linux in the last 10 years or so
would have lead to perl (including postgres w. plperl[u]) getting killed with
a somewhat distinctive message and the lack of reports I could find about it
the risk doesn't seem to be too big.
Greetings,
Andres
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-09-05 18:02:50 | Re: [bugfix] sepgsql didn't follow the latest core API changes |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-09-05 17:15:52 | Re: plperl sigfpe reset can crash the server |