Re: Non-replayable WAL records through overflows and >MaxAllocSize lengths

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, David Zhang <david(dot)zhang(at)highgo(dot)ca>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Non-replayable WAL records through overflows and >MaxAllocSize lengths
Date: 2023-04-06 23:35:05
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 08:08:34AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> So bumping mainrdata_len to uint64 is actually not entirely in line
> with this code. Well, it will work because we'd still fail a couple
> of lines down, but perhaps its readability should be improved so as
> we have an extra check in this code path to make sure that
> mainrdata_len is not higher than PG_UINT32_MAX, then use an
> intermediate casted variable before saving the length in the record
> data to make clear that the type of the main static length in
> xloginsert.c is not the same as what a record has? The v10 I sent
> previously blocked this possibility, but not v11.

So, I was thinking about something like the attached tweaking this
point, the error details a bit, applying an indentation and writing a
commit message... Matthias?

Attachment Content-Type Size
v12-0001-Add-more-protections-in-WAL-record-APIs-against-.patch text/x-diff 6.8 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Cary Huang 2023-04-06 23:41:43 Re: pg_recvlogical prints bogus error when interrupted
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2023-04-06 23:08:34 Re: Non-replayable WAL records through overflows and >MaxAllocSize lengths