Re: PostgreSQL crashes with SIGSEGV

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Aleksandr Parfenov <a(dot)parfenov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL crashes with SIGSEGV
Date: 2018-01-17 20:41:13
Message-ID: CAH2-WzkQzCaEkvdk2vyD1kNaKtTdYAM4r62krPFtytjxEu8A1A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Probably not very. It'd be nice to have it done by the next minor
> releases, ie before 5-Feb ... but given that these bugs are years
> old, missing that deadline would not be catastrophic.

Got it.

>> I'm not sure whether or not we should also apply this
>> still-to-be-written 9.5 patch to 9.4 and 9.3, since those versions
>> don't have grouping sets, and so cannot crash. ISTM that we should
>> leave them alone, since tuplesort has had this problem forever.
>
> +1. If the problem isn't known to be reproducible in those branches,
> the risk of adding new bugs seems to outweigh any benefit.

You could make the same objection to changing tuplesort_getdatum()
outside of the master branch, though. I think that going back further
than that for the (arguably independent) tuplesort_getdatum() subset
fix might still be a good idea. I wonder where you stand on this.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-01-17 21:00:16 Re: PostgreSQL crashes with SIGSEGV
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-01-17 20:31:22 Re: PostgreSQL crashes with SIGSEGV

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nikolay Shaplov 2018-01-17 20:50:04 [PATCH][PROPOSAL] Refuse setting toast.* reloptions when TOAST table does not exist
Previous Message Robert Haas 2018-01-17 20:40:25 Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory