Re: [FEATURE PATCH] pg_stat_statements with plans (v02)

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Julian Markwort <julian(dot)markwort(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>, legrand legrand <legrand_legrand(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Arthur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, marius(dot)timmer(at)uni-muenster(dot)de, arne(dot)scheffer(at)uni-muenster(dot)de
Subject: Re: [FEATURE PATCH] pg_stat_statements with plans (v02)
Date: 2018-08-20 09:26:14
Message-ID: 20180820092614.lbax54ejljxtaxga@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2018-08-20 15:21:07 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 2:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > ... but I'm less excited about this one. Seems like a great opportunity
> > for unexpected stack overflows, and thence at least the chance for
> > DOS-causing security attacks. Can we prevent that from being allowed,
> > if we start using -std=c99?
>
> -Werror=vla in GCC, apparently.

How about detecting support for that in our configure script and
automatically using it? If we're uncomfortable with raising an error,
let's at least raise a warning?

- Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2018-08-20 10:32:45 Re: remove ATTRIBUTE_FIXED_PART_SIZE
Previous Message Amit Langote 2018-08-20 09:15:15 Re: partitioning - changing a slot's descriptor is expensive