| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jan Nidzwetzki <jan(at)planetscale(dot)com>, Ayush Tiwari <ayushtiwari(dot)slg01(at)gmail(dot)com>, ♂π≌26218 <1991230470(at)qq(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: START_REPLICATION silently truncates an overlong LSN component |
| Date: | 2026-10-21 06:36:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwFJs1Kb3kqpatk-=d2M5g=7yar+dyrDiqNYYVFf-F3-rQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Oct 20, 2026 at 8:29 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> OK, PSA 0004.
Thanks!
+ if (fscanf(lfp, "INCREMENTAL FROM LSN: %17s\n", lsn) > 0 ||
+ !pg_parse_lsn(lsn, &istartpoint))
When fscanf() succeeds, pg_parse_lsn() is skipped. If the line is absent,
it parses the previous CHECKPOINT LOCATION value instead. Isn't this
problematic?
Since we don't use this LSN, how about removing the pg_parse_lsn() check
and istartpoint and simply rejecting the backup if fscanf() returns > 0?
> We can reduce the magic number from 0004 if we export
> MAXPG_LSNLEN
+1
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-10-21 06:42:58 | Re: pg_stat_statements replaces SQL/JSON ON EMPTY / ON ERROR keywords with parameters |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-10-21 05:56:41 | Re: BUG #19763: ManualBug2 NULL pointer dereference in make_build_data via examine_expression bypass of lookup_var_a |