From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Cc: zuming.jiang@inf.ethz.ch
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #17995: Segmentation fault caused by UPDATE statement
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 00:27:08 -0400
Message-ID: <636983.1687753628@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZJkSW1F78yDV2bjl@paquier.xyz>
References: <17995-9f20ff3e6389db4c@postgresql.org>
<285547.1687636319@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<68148dac-a574-f421-2905-51ebde2fe000@gmail.com>
<ZJkSW1F78yDV2bjl@paquier.xyz>
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 06:00:00AM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
>> BTW, there is a commitfest entry to eliminate a bunch of other stack
>> overflow hazards (may be the fuzzer can find some of them too):
>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/43/4239/> Thanks for the pointer, I'll double-check that. Some of the locations
> of stack depth checks proposed involve performance-sensitive code
> paths, though, like mcxt.c :/
I hadn't looked at the patch yet, but ... mcxt.c? How is that recursive?
Even if there is some path that recurses through that, wouldn't the
check be better placed in a less-hot part of the loop?
regards, tom lane
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, michael@paquier.xyz, exclusion@gmail.com, zuming.jiang@inf.ethz.ch, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #17995: Segmentation fault caused by UPDATE statement
In-Reply-To: <636983.1687753628@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