On 2015-08-04 09:49:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Takashi Horikawa <t-horik...@aj.jp.nec.com> writes: > >>>> Why does this cause a core dump? We could consider fixing whatever > >>>> the problem is rather than capping the value. > > > As far as I experiment with my own evaluation environment using > > PostgreSQL-9.4.4 on a x86_64 Linux, this problem can be fixed with the > > patch > > attached. > > I'm unsure whether this represents a complete fix ... but even if it does, > it would be awfully easy to re-introduce similar bugs in future code > changes, and who would notice? Josh's approach of restricting the buffer > size seems a lot more robust. > > If there were any practical use-case for such large WAL buffers then it > might be worth spending some effort/risk here. But AFAICS, there is not. > Indeed, capping wal_buffers might be argued to be a good thing in itself > because it would prevent users from wasting shared memory foolishly. > > So my vote is for the original approach. (I've not read Josh's patch, > so there might be something wrong with it in detail, but I like the > basic approach.)
+1 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
