Re: Server crash with older tzload library

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It strikes me that maybe we are putting ourselves at risk by blithely
>> pushing tzdata updates into back branches without also pushing tzcode
>> updates.

> I believe they're designed to be compatible both ways, I remember that
> the 64-bit changes in particular were done in such a way that new tzdata
> files work with older tzcode versions. I don't know if anyone else is
> testing various combinations, though, so it probably would be good to
> update tzcode anyway.

I wouldn't really expect a massive failure, but I am worried about the
possibility of misbehavior in corner-case timezones, such as those with
a very large number of DST rule changes. Also there is the risk of
unfixed bugs in the tzcode functions themselves. It's not clear to me
for example whether the crash bug Jeevan's been on about was introduced
in the 64bit tzcode changes or is a pre-existing problem.

>> However, doing this would mean updating the back branches for
>> 64bit tzdata, which is not a small change. Heikki, do you remember how
>> much that patch affected stuff outside the tzcode files proper?

> There was no changes outside tzcode files.

OK, I'm going to double-check that and then back-patch the current
tzcode files. It's too late for the upcoming releases but probably
it's just as well for this to sit awhile in CVS before we ship it.
We'll at least get some buildfarm cycles on it...

regards, tom lane