From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Mike Yeap <wkk1020(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2019-03-07 03:19:54 |
Message-ID: | 20190307031954.GA1797215@rfd.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 10:45:56AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 11:28 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > 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.
>
> I don't see anything like that (the concept doesn't seem very
> portable).
I'm not aware of one.
> > > 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.
>
> Ok, here's that patch again with a commit message and with the
> configure version warning removed, and a make-sure-we're-not-threaded
> patch for FreeBSD.
>
> I'm not sure what to do about the LDAP test in
> contrib/dblink/sql/dblink.sql. Do we still want this?
Mike, does the dblink test suite not fail on your system? It's designed to
catch this exact problem.
Has anyone else reproduced this?
> I propose this for master only, for now. I also think it'd be nice to
> consider back-patching it after a while, especially since this
> reported broke on CentOS/RHEL7, a pretty popular OS that'll be around
> for a good while. Hmm, I wonder if it's OK to subtly change library
> dependencies in a minor release; I don't see any problem with it since
> I expect both variants to be provided by the same package in every
> distro but we'd certainly want to highlight this to the package
> maintainers if we did it.
It's not great to change library dependencies in a minor release. If every
RHEL 7 installation can crash this way, changing the dependencies is probably
the least bad thing.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-03-07 03:25:10 | Re: Performance comparison between Pgsql 10.5 and Pgsql 11.2 |
Previous Message | Sameer Kumar | 2019-03-07 02:51:29 | Re: Non-pausing table scan on 9.6 replica? |