On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 2:28 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> + * file just as if this were not an incremental backup. The contents of the
> + * relative_block_numbers array is unspecified in this case.
>
> Perhaps you mean s/is/are/ here? The contents are what's not
> specified.
Thanks, fixed.
Hi Thomas,
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 01:53:24AM +, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Fix potential stack overflow in incremental backup.
>
> The user can set RELSEG_SIZE to a high number at compile time, so we
> can't use it to control the size of an array on the stack: it could be
> many gigabytes in
Fix potential stack overflow in incremental backup.
The user can set RELSEG_SIZE to a high number at compile time, so we
can't use it to control the size of an array on the stack: it could be
many gigabytes in size. On closer inspection, we don't really need that
intermediate array anyway.
