Re: SIGSEGV from START_REPLICATION 0/XXXXXXX in XLogSendPhysical ()at walsender.c:2762

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Dave Cramer
Тема Re: SIGSEGV from START_REPLICATION 0/XXXXXXX in XLogSendPhysical ()at walsender.c:2762
Дата
Msg-id CADK3HHJtd14MW5AV5sN+acxPP7Y4sVqUqhf141XbcG8j8d_mMw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: SIGSEGV from START_REPLICATION 0/XXXXXXX in XLogSendPhysical ()at walsender.c:2762  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения


On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 15:41, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 2020-Jun-24, Robert Haas wrote:

> So really I think this turns on #1: is it plausible
> that people are using this feature, however inadvertent it may be, and
> is it potentially useful? I don't see that anybody's made an argument
> against either of those things. Unless someone can do so, I think we
> shouldn't disable this.

People (specifically the jdbc driver) *are* using this feature in this
way, but they didn't realize they were doing it.  It was an accident and
they didn't notice.


Not sure we are using it as much as we accidently did it that way. It would be trivial to fix.

That said I think we should fix the security hole this opens and leave the functionality.

Dave

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: SIGSEGV from START_REPLICATION 0/XXXXXXX in XLogSendPhysical ()at walsender.c:2762
Следующее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: SIGSEGV from START_REPLICATION 0/XXXXXXX in XLogSendPhysical ()at walsender.c:2762