| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CVE-2017-7484-induced bugs, or, btree cmp functions are not leakproof? |
| Date: | 2019-07-29 09:59:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-tQ8FXqMEf8fEQaso_wvwB6SMJ36CpUej3AFY19-10zoA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 2:39 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 2:43 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:15 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Thanks for checking. There has been a lot of churn in the inheritance
> > > planning code since my last email on this thread, so I'd like to
> > > reconsider. I'm busy this week with some things, so I'll try posting
> > > something on next Tuesday.
> > >
> > Sounds good.
>
> I looked at this today and concluded that the problem and the patches
> discussed here are fairly isolated from inheritance planning changes
> committed to PG 12.
>
> I've combined the two patches into one.
Looks fine to me, moved to ready for committer.
I tried to think up test
> cases to go with the code changes, but couldn't come up with one.
I am also not sure how to test whether we have access to the
statistics of the table.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-07-29 10:17:03 | Re: ANALYZE: ERROR: tuple already updated by self |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-07-29 09:30:53 | Re: using explicit_bzero |