On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> On 22.02.2011 15:52, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Yes. It would be good to perform those sanity checks anyway.
>> I don't think it's good; I think it's absolutely necessary. Otherwise
>> someone can generate arbitrary garbage, hash it, and feed it to us.
> No, the hash is stored in shared memory. The hash of the garbage has to
Oh. Well that's really silly. At that point you might as well just
store the snapshot and an integer identifier in shared memory, right?
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2011-02-22 14:34:34|
|Subject: Re: Snapshot synchronization, again...|
|Previous:||From: rsmogura||Date: 2011-02-22 14:22:56|
|Subject: Re: Void binary patch|