Re: [BUGS] BUG #1270: stack overflow in thread in fe_getauthname

From: Peter Davie <Peter(dot)Davie(at)relevance(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #1270: stack overflow in thread in fe_getauthname
Date: 2004-10-10 01:06:47
Message-ID: 41688B27.3010700@relevance.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Tom,

How many of these platforms you use are POSIX-compliant? This
information came from the POSIX web site (NOT THE DIGITAL/COMPAQ/HP/...
WEBSITE). Sysconf(_SC_GETPW_R_SIZE_MAX) is supported by Solaris 2.5,
SCO UNIX (circa 1999!), Digital UNIX/Compaq Tru64 UNIX, FreeBSD, AIX,
HP-UX, and probably many more.

Maybe the non-compliant platforms should be catered for as "legacy" with
support code in the "ports" area, and those that do adhere to open
standards can be accommodated without breaking existing production
applications.

Thanks
Peter

Tom Lane wrote:

>Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
>
>>OK, we got a report. I just thinkg 8192 is excessive for that
>>structure, and if someone is having a problem, others might as well.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>On Tru64 UNIX, sysconf(_SC_GETPW_R_SIZE_MAX) returns 1024.
>>>
>>>
>
>I'd be more impressed by this line of reasoning if _SC_GETPW_R_SIZE_MAX
>were defined on more than one of the platforms I use...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>

--
Relevance... because results count

Relevance Phone: +61 (0)2 6241 6400
A.B.N. 86 063 403 690 Fax: +61 (0)2 6241 6422
Unit 11, Mitchell Commercial Centre, Mobile: +61 (0)417 265 175
cnr Brookes and Heffernan Sts., E-mail: peter(dot)davie(at)relevance(dot)com(dot)au
Mitchell ACT 2911 Web: http://www.relevance.com.au

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2004-10-10 04:02:00 Re: postgres vulnerability
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2004-10-10 00:49:53 Re: Notes on config-file-locations patch