On Wednesday, September 05, 2012 07:15:52 PM Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On Sunday, August 26, 2012 06:10:02 PM Andres Freund wrote: > >> On Saturday, August 25, 2012 06:38:09 AM Tom Lane wrote: > >>> Surely that's breaking perl's expectations, to more or less the same > >>> degree they're breaking ours? > >> > >> In the referenced bug they agree that this is the way forward. > > > > As nobody has any better ideas here is a patch doing that: > OK. Do we want to commit this now, or wait till after 9.2.0? > My feeling is it's probably okay to include in 9.2.0, but I can see > that somebody might want to argue not to. Any objections out there? Perhaps unsurprisingly I would argue for including it. I am not saying its a perfect solution, but not bandaiding seems to open a bigger hole/DOS. Given that any occurance of SIGFPE inside perl on linux in the last 10 years or so would have lead to perl (including postgres w. plperl[u]) getting killed with a somewhat distinctive message and the lack of reports I could find about it the risk doesn't seem to be too big.
Greetings, Andres -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
