From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Clear padding in PgStat_HashKey keys |
Date: | 2024-11-04 10:07:37 |
Message-ID: | Zyic6YpRG863J6aN@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 06:49:04PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 08:52:04AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > Yeah, but not only the relfilenode ones. All kinds were affected as random data
> > was in the padding bytes for all of them.
>
> A quick test where I add some padding junk in PgStat_HashKey proves
> that you are right.
Thanks for the testing!
> I'm wondering if we should backpatch that,
> actually, down to where it has been introduced. We are unlikely going
> to change this structure,
Yeah.
> but if we do for the sake of a bug fix,
> which is always a possibility as ABI does not matter much for this
> internal structure, that's potentially trouble waiting ahead.
That's right.
> Thoughts?
hm, yeah I think that it could fall into the "low-risk fixes" category [0] and
that we can opt for backpatch.
[0]: https://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2024-11-04 10:08:03 | Re: protocol-level wait-for-LSN |
Previous Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2024-11-04 10:01:50 | Re: per backend I/O statistics |