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
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 |
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 |