| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Snapshot synchronization, again... |
| Date: | 2011-02-22 14:29:20 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTim0t=ro8pH010yrwMcNvdVO8yPw-XWRgz0qmfnq@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On 22.02.2011 15:52, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes. It would be good to perform those sanity checks anyway.
>>
>> I don't think it's good; I think it's absolutely necessary. Otherwise
>> someone can generate arbitrary garbage, hash it, and feed it to us.
>> No?
>
> No, the hash is stored in shared memory. The hash of the garbage has to
> match.
Oh. Well that's really silly. At that point you might as well just
store the snapshot and an integer identifier in shared memory, right?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-02-22 14:34:34 | Re: Snapshot synchronization, again... |
| Previous Message | rsmogura | 2011-02-22 14:22:56 | Re: Void binary patch |