| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: plperl sigfpe reset can crash the server |
| Date: | 2012-09-05 20:45:32 |
| Message-ID: | 6418.1346877932@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Wednesday, September 05, 2012 07:15:52 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> OK. Do we want to commit this now, or wait till after 9.2.0?
>> My feeling is it's probably okay to include in 9.2.0, but I can see
>> that somebody might want to argue not to. Any objections out there?
> Perhaps unsurprisingly I would argue for including it. I am not saying its a
> perfect solution, but not bandaiding seems to open a bigger hole/DOS. Given
> that any occurance of SIGFPE inside perl on linux in the last 10 years or so
> would have lead to perl (including postgres w. plperl[u]) getting killed with
> a somewhat distinctive message and the lack of reports I could find about it
> the risk doesn't seem to be too big.
Hearing no objections, committed and back-patched.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2012-09-05 20:49:09 | Re: [v9.3] Row-Level Security |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-09-05 20:40:54 | Re: pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows |