Re: seawasp failing, maybe in glibc allocator

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: seawasp failing, maybe in glibc allocator
Date: 2021-06-24 23:38:01
Message-ID: CA+hUKG+DSBxo+9=EkxuGz0t1s_s2im7wM+8Xg18iBn7rrbv_nQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 11:57 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.

Agreed.

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 10:23 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I think I'd vote for 2 or 2+ (backpatch immediately).

Yeah, that makes sense. Done.

Seawasp should turn green on its next run.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2021-06-24 23:40:48 Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2021-06-24 22:32:20 Re: Pipeline mode and PQpipelineSync()