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.


 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:

Reply via email to