Re: pg_dump / copy bugs with "big lines" ?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Daniel Verite
Тема Re: pg_dump / copy bugs with "big lines" ?
Дата
Msg-id 1706e85e-60d2-494e-8a64-9af1e1b2186e@manitou-mail.org
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: pg_dump / copy bugs with "big lines" ?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: pg_dump / copy bugs with "big lines" ?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump / copy bugs with "big lines" ?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump / copy bugs with "big lines" ?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
    Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> I have now pushed this to 9.5, 9.6 and master.  It could be backpatched
> to 9.4 with ease (just a small change in heap_form_tuple); anything
> further back would require much more effort.
>
> I used a 32-bit limit using sizeof(int32).  I tested and all the
> mentioned cases seem to work sanely; if you can spare some more time to
> test what was committed, I'd appreciate it.

My tests are OK too but I see an issue with the code in
enlargeStringInfo(), regarding integer overflow.
The bit of comment that says:

  Note we are assuming here that limit <= INT_MAX/2, else the above
  loop could overflow.

is obsolete, it's now INT_MAX instead of INT_MAX/2.

There's a related problem here:
    newlen = 2 * str->maxlen;
    while (needed > newlen)
        newlen = 2 * newlen;
str->maxlen is an int going up to INT_MAX so [2 * str->maxlen] now
*will* overflow when [str->maxlen > INT_MAX/2].
Eventually it somehow works because of this:
    if (newlen > limit)
        newlen = limit;
but newlen is wonky (when resulting from int overflow)
before being brought back to limit.

PFA a minimal fix.

Best regards,
--
Daniel Vérité
PostgreSQL-powered mailer: http://www.manitou-mail.org
Twitter: @DanielVerite

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Amit Kapila
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: UNDO and in-place update
Следующее
От: Albe Laurenz
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Parallel execution and prepared statements