From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Charles Paperman <charles(dot)paperman(at)inria(dot)fr> |
Cc: | "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Filip Murlak <fmurlak(at)gmail(dot)com>, matgienieczko(at)gmail(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: jsonpath duplication result |
Date: | 2021-09-02 13:55:45 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwahoBTcy1W2ob7zna_ZK6yGsXTYLN31UbdASwvTPSh7pA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 6:06 AM Charles Paperman <charles(dot)paperman(at)inria(dot)fr>
wrote:
> I also wonder if it is problematic to have simple small query like that
> that can be design to make the database work endlessly?
>
>
No, because the "simple small" part of that doesn't matter. A user with
access has various ways to affect denial-of-service on the server. If you
don't trust someone from doing this kind of thing intentionally don't
provide them a login. Accidental issues of this nature should be accounted
for in other ways - like testing. And the process-oriented nature of the
system helps too since CPU starving becomes difficulty (so memory ends up
being the main concern).
The pathological case shown here is not all that concerning to me either.
That the implementation choice could have been different, and match other
implementations, is interesting to me. But changing this kind of behavior
is usually not an option. Though adding new features to accomplish the new
behavior is something to consider.
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | M Tarkeshwar Rao | 2021-09-02 14:35:20 | memory consumption of memory for postgres db container |
Previous Message | Ninad Shah | 2021-09-02 13:28:03 | Re: Issue with a query while running on a remote host |