Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:19:13 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Vladimir Kunschikov <kunschikov@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [patch] pg_dump/pg_restore zerror() and strerror()
 mishap
Message-ID: <20170728181913.owfihtuye2ki6agv@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFWCTZa2o0xM9XFbKOPaWd=urONkCEmFimH9Dao474_q7P2ELg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306-137-4415bd-dirty (1.8.0)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Vladimir Kunschikov wrote:
> >This "maxlen" business and the fallback error message are
> >strange.  We have roughly equivalent code in pg_basebackup.c
> >which has been working since 2011
> >Perhaps you can drop the memchr/fallback tricks and adopt the
> >pg_basebackup coding?  Or is there a specific reason to have
> >the memchr check?
> 
> Ofcourse that tricks can be dropped, function will be much prettier.
> 'Tricks' were made to pass some strict internal tests.

Well, if there are cases which cause zlib to return a message that
causes a crash when printing it or some other problem, then let's use
your version both in this new code and in pg_basebackup.  Do these cases
really exist?

> Initially I used exactly that function from pg_basebackup.c:
> https://github.com/kunschikov/postgres/commit/15e9fda6df51cf17c0b0a4f201ee0f93cf258de9#diff-98e3f8ce5d6e87950dd66e4c8bdedb21R713
> It was rewritten for the sake of somewhat exaggerated security.
> Version #5 in attachment.

I'd rather have all the security we can get, so before dropping those
protections, let's make sure they are useless.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers