Re: Re: [BUGS] libpq does not manage SSL callbacks properly when other libraries are involved.

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PoolSnoopy <tlatzelsberger(at)gmx(dot)at>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: [BUGS] libpq does not manage SSL callbacks properly when other libraries are involved.
Date: 2008-11-19 20:49:10
Message-ID: 200811192049.mAJKnAT09771@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

Russell Smith wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> >
> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is not something we would typically backpatch because of the danger
> >>> of introducing some unexpected change in libpq. We can provide a patch
> >>> to anyone who needs it, or if the community wants it backpatched I can
> >>> certainly do that.
> >>>
>
> If we start deciding we are not backpatching fixes that we know cause
> crashes, where is the limit?

Stability. That is our limit (goal).

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little
minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

> >> It isn't? It does seem like a bug, which we do typically backpatch ...
> >>
> >
> > Well, it's a risk-reward tradeoff. In this case it seems like there's
> > a nontrivial risk of creating new bugs against fixing a problem that
> > evidently affects very few people. I concur with Bruce's feeling that
> > we shouldn't backpatch ... at least not now. Once the patch has been
> > through beta testing we could reconsider.
> >
> > regards, tom lane
> >
> I would like to see this backpatched. Even though the PostgreSQL
> community hasn't seen a lot of complaints, there have been a number of
> reports where the bug has caused crashes. Ubuntu launchpad has 6
> duplicates for this bug. php has a bug report for it. So it's not like

Wow, that is interesting.

> people don't know about it. They just didn't know how to fix it. All
> that said, I agree it's safer to wait until the 8.4 beta cycle has given
> this code change a good run before proceeding. In the mean time
> distributions can either backpatch it themselves or wait for PostgreSQL
> community to apply the patch.
>
> For the environment where I have this problem, I think it's still going
> to be a up hill battle to get RedHat to incorporate the fix into RHEL5.
> That's whichever route the community takes with backpatching.

Yea, it is a shame we didn't find/fix this earlier. It is reproducable
so I am surprised we did not hear about it sooner.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stuart Green 2008-11-19 22:03:31 BUG #4539: to_char(to_timestamp('...', '....')) returns the wrong result
Previous Message Russell Smith 2008-11-19 09:33:38 Re: Re: [BUGS] libpq does not manage SSL callbacks properly when other libraries are involved.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zdenek Kotala 2008-11-19 21:45:21 pg_upgrade: How to deal with toast
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2008-11-19 19:54:16 Re: Client certificate authentication