| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David K <dkarapetyan(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bug: XLogReader mishandles oversized multi-page xl_tot_len (potential memory corruption) |
| Date: | 2026-08-04 21:59:58 |
| Message-ID: | anJg3rHwUKDkwqSO@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 03, 2026 at 11:23:47AM +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 at 01:21, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> Another thing to note: this basically breaks the recovery test
>> 039_end_of_wal.pl. Could you look at that please?
>
> Also fixed, including a new test case for >XLogRecordMaxSize.
Makes sense to me this way, so applied on HEAD.
I was also wondering for a bit why bae868caf222 has decided to stick
with a 2GB value for the record size in the written record headers,
but as far as I can see it's an arbitrary value that Thomas has picked
up when writing the tests, see the first flavor here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+hUKGLhFdd-G1DCk9Ze3KnQ_2jUkxyXvGwV_Ha=DWMrDnGHng@mail.gmail.com
And the resulting commit has inherited it.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2026-08-04 22:13:21 | Re: Why clearing the VM doesn't require registering vm buffer in wal record |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2026-08-04 21:30:18 | Re: CREATE SUBSCRIPTION ... SERVER vs. pg_dump, etc. |