Re: Backport of CVE-2024-10978 fix to older pgsql versions (11, 9.6, and 9.4)

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Roberto C(dot) Sánchez <roberto(at)debian(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Backport of CVE-2024-10978 fix to older pgsql versions (11, 9.6, and 9.4)
Date: 2024-12-31 20:47:19
Message-ID: CAKFQuwaf-h7iRFXnTg_XNN6tgZ+TCU6oRPozvDsq6Je-z-t+QQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 1:30 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 03:19:25PM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>
> > My thinking was "ask once, bump the thread once after 2 or 3 weeks just
> > in case it got lost in the noise (this is a busy list), and after that
> > let the matter rest if there is no answer".
>
> We don't normally ignore emails, so would not bother with a second
> request.
>

And yet the squeaky wheel does seem to get the grease; and I know from
personal experience that emails will go unresponded two for weeks, which to
a reasonable submitter to this list, when many responses are indeed the
same day, seems like an email that got overlooked.

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2024-12-31 20:49:27 Re: Improve documentation regarding custom settings, placeholders, and the administrative functions
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2024-12-31 20:46:58 Re: Add the ability to limit the amount of memory that can be allocated to backends.