Re: libpq debug log

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "iwata(dot)aya(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <iwata(dot)aya(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, 'Kyotaro Horiguchi' <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: libpq debug log
Date: 2021-03-10 22:25:46
Message-ID: 20210310222546.GA18802@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2021-Mar-10, Tom Lane wrote:

> After studying this further, I think we should apply the attached
> patch to remove that responsibility from pqParseInput3's subroutines.
> This will allow a single trace call near the bottom of pqParseInput3
> to handle all cases that that function processes.

Works for me.

> BTW, while looking at this I concluded that getParamDescriptions
> is actually buggy: if it's given a malformed message that seems
> to need more data than the message length specifies, it just
> returns EOF, resulting in an infinite loop. This function apparently
> got missed while converting the logic from v2 (where that was the
> right thing) to v3 (where it ain't). So that bit needs to be
> back-patched.

Ah, that makes sense.

> I'm tempted to back-patch the whole thing though.

+0.5 on that. I think we may be happy that all branches are alike
(though it doesn't look like this will cause any subtle bugs -- breakage
will be fairly obvious).

Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W
"Most hackers will be perfectly comfortable conceptualizing users as entropy
sources, so let's move on." (Nathaniel Smith)

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2021-03-10 22:29:38 Re: automatic analyze: readahead - add "IO read time" log message
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2021-03-10 22:03:26 Re: GiST comment improvement