From: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tim Brookes <tim(dot)brookes(at)mcmail(dot)com>, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: libpq++ tracing considered harmful (was Re: libpq++ memory problems) |
Date: | 2000-04-20 18:28:15 |
Message-ID: | 38FF4C3F.D79FCF4D@wgcr.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> writes:
> >> Perhaps something can be salvaged from the wreckage, but for now the
> >> right answer is just to make sure that this code is not compiled.
> > And to compile this code you supply _which_ configure option?
> It isn't a configure option --- you have to edit libpq++'s makefile
> to enable it. Or, in the case of the 6.5.* code, it got turned on
> anyway :-(.
Now that is just grand. It will be a happy day once all the various
configuration options, both runtime and compiletime, are brought under
the GrandReUnification umbrella that Peter E is weaving right now....
> Fortunately there is no security hole in either 6.5.*
> or current, since the code is too broken to actually produce any
> trace output, compiled or not.
That's what I thought you said. Which, in this case, a bug was a good
thing -- as if the code hadn't been buggy, we'd have had a security bug.
~:-]
> My point was mainly that I thought
> we should remove the code rather than fix it.
Who added the code in the first place? Would anyone _need_ it?
Otherwise, I agree -- _can_ it, if it's not too big of a change this
close to release (methinks not, but, you never know).
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Manuel Lemos | 2000-04-21 23:02:00 | Re: Connecting website with SQL-database..... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-04-20 18:22:32 | Re: libpq++ tracing considered harmful (was Re: libpq++ memory problems) |