Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup
От | David Gould |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20151120171450.024d484d@engels обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 19:11:23 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I'm not sure whether we should treat this as a back-patchable bug fix > or a new feature for HEAD only. If we don't back-patch it, there are > in any case several bugs here that we must fix. In particular, the > existing coding in ReceiveTarFile: > > size_t filesz = 0; > ... > sscanf(&tarhdr[124], "%11o", (unsigned int *) &filesz); > > is utterly, absolutely, completely broken; it'll fail grossly on > any 64-bit big-endian hardware. There are other places with misplaced > faith that "unsigned long" is at least as wide as size_t. > > Comments? My vote would be that it should go in 9.5. If it gets back patched then some dumps produced by 9.4.x would not be readable by 9.4.x-1. But no 9.5.x dump is broken by changing it now. -dg -- David Gould 510 282 0869 daveg@sonic.net If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: