Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Snapshot synchronization, again...

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Snapshot synchronization, again...
Date: 2011-02-22 14:29:20
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> 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?
> No, the hash is stored in shared memory. The hash of the garbage has to
> match.

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?

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2011-02-22 14:34:34
Subject: Re: Snapshot synchronization, again...
Previous:From: rsmoguraDate: 2011-02-22 14:22:56
Subject: Re: Void binary patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group