| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name> |
| Subject: | Re: Regression with large XML data input |
| Date: | 2025-07-28 02:16:47 |
| Message-ID: | 314265.1753669007@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 02:21:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, from Jim Jones' result upthread, a "minor update" of libxml2
>> could also have caused this problem: 2.9.7 and 2.9.14 behave
>> differently. So we don't have sole control --- or sole responsibility
>> --- here.
> This sentence is incorrect after I have double-checked the behaviors I
> am seeing based on local builds of libxml2 2.9.7 and 2.9.14.
Hmm, okay, I misread Jim's results then. But there still remains
the big question: what reason is there to believe that it's safe
to return to the old behavior? If newer libxml2 versions report
XML_ERR_RESOURCE_LIMIT on the same input, doesn't it seem likely
that there's a live hazard in the old code?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-07-28 02:47:59 | Re: Regression with large XML data input |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-07-28 02:09:33 | Re: Regression with large XML data input |