From: Dmitry Koval <d.koval@postgrespro.ru>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #18274: Error 'invalid XML content'
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 18:47:17 +0300
Message-ID: <35ef78f9-8958-4225-ae7e-aead71b0feed@postgrespro.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZaRvbaQ8V9uGxXGD@paquier.xyz>
References: <18274-98d16bc03520665f@postgresql.org>
<1616257.1704651529@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<5588db01-45be-48ff-b158-85f789bc502c@postgrespro.ru>
<1314313.1705259848@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<0eea123f-388a-41ea-9df3-d4606cf9ed8d@postgrespro.ru>
<ZaRvbaQ8V9uGxXGD@paquier.xyz>
Hi!
> Knowing that we have full control of the memory contexts for the XML
> nodes, just enforcing the huge flag does not seem like there's any
> downside for us. (Right?)
I think that's right (flag XML_PARSE_HUGE shouldn't cause any problems).
My main doubts are related to the replacement of the
xmlParseBalancedChunkMemory() function (that haven't argument for pass
XML_PARSE_HUGE flag) with xmlNewNode() + xmlParseInNodeContext()
functions (create a fake node and pass the XML_PARSE_HUGE flag to
xmlParseInNodeContext function).
I'm not sure if this replacement is 100% equivalent (although simple
tests work the same).
--
With best regards,
Dmitry Koval
Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.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: d.koval@postgrespro.ru, michael@paquier.xyz, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #18274: Error 'invalid XML content'
In-Reply-To: <35ef78f9-8958-4225-ae7e-aead71b0feed@postgrespro.ru>
* 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