Re: libpq compression

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Daniil Zakhlystov <usernamedt(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Denis Smirnov <sd(at)arenadata(dot)io>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: libpq compression
Date: 2020-12-22 21:52:41
Message-ID: 662165.1608673961@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> But there is a privilege boundary between the sender and the receiver.
>> What's alleged here is that the sender can do a thing which causes the
>> receiver to burn through tons of memory. It doesn't help anything to
>> say, well, the sender ought to use a window size of N or less. What if
>> they don't?

> The receiver rejects the data as though it were corrupt.

(Having said that, I don't know whether it's possible for the user of
libzstd to specify such behavior. But if it isn't, that's a CVE-worthy
problem in libzstd.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2020-12-22 22:45:42 Re: Parallel bitmap index scan
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-12-22 21:40:26 Preventing hangups in bgworker start/stop during DB shutdown