Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pnjiO-0007Ro-Ly for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 17:29:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pnjiN-0003fB-HI for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 17:29:31 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pnjiN-0003ep-8Y for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 17:29:31 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pnjiL-00070S-4R for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 17:29:30 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 33FHTRWg2000240; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:29:27 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: fjz22@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, ljiee@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn, wuzy21@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn Subject: Re: 1. PostgreSQL Server Subprocess Went down at function 'pg_detoast_datum_packed' In-reply-to: <007201d96e23$fabaff10$f030fd30$@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn> References: <007201d96e23$fabaff10$f030fd30$@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn> Comments: In-reply-to message dated "Fri, 14 Apr 2023 00:21:19 +0800" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2000238.1681579767.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:29:27 -0400 Message-ID: <2000239.1681579767@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk writes: > Description: PostgreSQL Server Subprocess Went down at function > 'pg_detoast_datum_packed' I see no bug here. If you are a superuser, and create incorrect definitions of C-level functions, you can crash the server. Even if we thought it was useful to try to prevent incorrect definitions, doing so would almost certainly be an unsolvable problem. Every one of the other "bugs" you just submitted appears to also depend on superusers doing things they should know better than to do. It's about in the same category as complaining that "sudo rm -rf /" crashes your system. regards, tom lane