Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ebtJ3-0003y8-GC for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 19:23:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ebtJ2-0002tq-Bv for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 19:23:28 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ebtJ1-0002tf-P8 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 19:23:27 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebtIu-0005ov-KZ for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 19:23:26 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w0HJNIT9014268; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:23:18 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Aleksandr Parfenov cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Peter Geoghegan Subject: Re: PostgreSQL crashes with SIGSEGV In-reply-to: <151608914608.25640.2144132915573008595.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org> References: <1512661638.9720.34.camel@oopsware.de> <151608914608.25640.2144132915573008595.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org> Comments: In-reply-to Aleksandr Parfenov message dated "Tue, 16 Jan 2018 07:52:26 +0000" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <14266.1516216998.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:23:18 -0500 Message-ID: <14267.1516216998@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Aleksandr Parfenov writes: > The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer I don't feel particularly comfortable committing a patch that was clearly labeled as a rushed draft by its author. Peter, where do you stand on this work? In a quick look at the patches, WIP-kludge-fix.patch seems clearly unacceptable for back-patching because it changes the signature and behavior of ExecResetTupleTable, which external code might well be using. regards, tom lane