From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: cam.daniel@gmail.com
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #16655: pg_dump segfault when excluding postgis table
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 17:26:04 -0400
Message-ID: <2007400.1602019564@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1995213.1602011218@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <16655-5c92d6b3a9438137@postgresql.org>
<1819571.1601937068@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20201006163318.GX3063@tamriel.snowman.net>
<1909344.1602003707@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<1995213.1602011218@sss.pgh.pa.us>
I wrote:
> 0001 is sufficient to get past the proposed test case in 0002. However,
> I think processExtensionTables is also buggy here. It does need to set
> the "interesting" flag to true if it decides we need to dump the table's
> data, because we have to have the per-attribute data to support that,
> and "interesting" might not ever get set true on the table otherwise.
> But *it is not OK to set "interesting" to false just because we don't
> decide to dump the data*. If it's been set true for some other reason,
> that other reason didn't just vanish. So I think we also need 0003.
Upon excavating in the git history, I discovered that that error was
introduced in 3eb3d3e78 [1], which explains why the OP thought it was
new in v13 --- no other branch has shipped the buggy code yet.
It's not entirely clear to me why we don't get a crash on the case in
pre-v12 branches, but I'm inclined to apply these patches all the way
back anyway, as they definitely seem like robustness improvements
whether or not a given branch accidentally fails to fail.
regards, tom lane
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/18048b44-3414-b983-8c7c-9165b177900d%402ndQuadrant.com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, sfrost@snowman.net, cam.daniel@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #16655: pg_dump segfault when excluding postgis table
In-Reply-To: <2007400.1602019564@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox