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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers