Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Wednesday, September 05, 2012 07:15:52 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
Hearing no objections, committed and back-patched.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
