Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-08-01 Thread Noah Misch
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 08:29:51PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: Where are we with this? Do we feel confident that this bug is only on old versions of Solaris we don't care about? Or does it remain to be resolved? Affected systems either have an available vendor update addressing the problem or

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-07-31 Thread Josh Berkus
Noah, All: Where are we with this? Do we feel confident that this bug is only on old versions of Solaris we don't care about? Or does it remain to be resolved? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-07-25 Thread Noah Misch
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 08:40:05AM +0200, Bjorn Munch wrote: On 22/07 02.29, Noah Misch wrote: I ran this program on Solaris 9 U5 (September 2006) on Sparc and got: I appreciate your testing. A few sources give December 2003 as the month for Solaris 9 Update 5; would you verify the

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-07-22 Thread Bjorn Munch
On 22/07 02.29, Noah Misch wrote: I ran this program on Solaris 9 U5 (September 2006) on Sparc and got: I appreciate your testing. A few sources give December 2003 as the month for Solaris 9 Update 5; would you verify the vintage you used? Sorry I was mis-parsing the /etc/release. 9/05 is

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-07-22 Thread Noah Misch
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 04:45:21PM +0200, Bjorn Munch wrote: On 27/06 12.51, Noah Misch wrote: PostgreSQL 9.5 adds a strxfrm() call in bttext_abbrev_convert(), which does not account for the Solaris bug. I wish to determine whether that bug is still relevant today. If you have access

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-07-21 Thread Bjorn Munch
On 27/06 12.51, Noah Misch wrote: PostgreSQL 9.5 adds a strxfrm() call in bttext_abbrev_convert(), which does not account for the Solaris bug. I wish to determine whether that bug is still relevant today. If you have access to Solaris with the is_IS.ISO8859-1 locale installed (or root

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-07-09 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote: One function had a comment explaining its workaround for an OS bug, while another function ignored the same bug. That is always a defect in the comments at least; our code shall tell a uniform story about its API

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-07-08 Thread Noah Misch
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 11:57:30AM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote: PostgreSQL 9.5 adds a strxfrm() call in bttext_abbrev_convert(), which does not account for the Solaris bug. I wish to determine whether that bug is still

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-07-03 Thread Noah Misch
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 03:22:33AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 09:45:08AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes: On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 07:00:14PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Another idea would be to make a test during postmaster start to see if

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-07-01 Thread Noah Misch
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 09:45:08AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes: On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 07:00:14PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Another idea would be to make a test during postmaster start to see if this bug exists, and fail if so. I'm generally on board with the

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes: On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 07:00:14PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Another idea would be to make a test during postmaster start to see if this bug exists, and fail if so. I'm generally on board with the thought that we don't need to work on systems with such a bad

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-30 Thread Josh Berkus
On 06/29/2015 07:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: On 06/29/2015 02:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: Joyent confirms that the bug is fixed on SmartOS: The more interesting bit of information would be

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: The question is: how many folks out there are running PostgreSQL on Solaris 10? And are they at all likely to upgrade to PostgreSQL 9.5? That's only the pertinent question if the bug exists on Solaris 10, which I don't think we know do we? Oskari

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-29 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: Joyent confirms that the bug is fixed on SmartOS: The more interesting bit of information would be *when* it was fixed. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-29 Thread Josh Berkus
On 06/29/2015 02:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: Joyent confirms that the bug is fixed on SmartOS: The more interesting bit of information would be *when* it was fixed. Answer: not certain, but fixed at least 2 years ago. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-29 Thread Josh Berkus
All, Joyent confirms that the bug is fixed on SmartOS: This is what I see: SunOS pkgsrc-pbulk-2014Q4-1.local 5.11 joyent_20141030T081701Z i86pc i386 i86pc locale is_IS.ISO8859-1: strxfrm returned 212; last modified byte at 58 (0x0) locale is_IS.ISO8859-1: strxfrm returned 212; last

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-29 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: On 06/29/2015 02:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: Joyent confirms that the bug is fixed on SmartOS: The more interesting bit of information would be *when* it was fixed. Answer: not certain,

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-29 Thread Noah Misch
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:52:26AM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Thomas Munro thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com writes: Just by the way, I wonder if this was that bug: https://illumos.org/issues/1594 Oooh. Might or might not

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-28 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com writes: On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I think the point of Noah's query is to find out whether ancient is an accurate description. You said it yourself at the time -- why trust the strxfrm() implementation when a NULL

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-28 Thread Josh Berkus
On 06/28/2015 12:29 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: It might have been the right decision at the time to paper over the problem, but only for a year or two. I'd only favor adding defenses if it could be expected to take longer for the Solaris stdlib people to ship a fix for their egregious bug than

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-28 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: The point here is to *find out*, rather than assuming. I agree that Sun should have been embarrassed that such a bug ever made it into a released libc, but it did. The question is how long did it take them to notice and fix

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-28 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Munro thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com writes: Just by the way, I wonder if this was that bug: https://illumos.org/issues/1594 Oooh. Might or might not be *same* bug, but it sure looks like it could have the right symptom. If this is indeed inherited from old Solaris, I'm afraid we are

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-28 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com writes: It might have been the right decision at the time to paper over the problem, but only for a year or two. I'd only favor adding defenses if it could be expected to take longer for the Solaris stdlib people to ship a fix for their egregious bug than it

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-28 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: The reason that bug is special is that it looks like a crash in Postgres, one that people have complained of because they didn't see it in other programs, which is not totally surprising because it requires a somewhat unusual

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-28 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com writes: It might have been the right decision at the time to paper over the problem, but only for a year or two. I'd only favor adding defenses if it could be expected to take longer for the

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-28 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: I completely agree. Noah is quite right to try to find out whether this is still an issue, and I'm glad he's doing it, and I think it's very unfortunate that Peter is trying to discourage that research. Far from it. I

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-28 Thread Thomas Munro
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: My perspective is that if both SmartOS and OmniOS pass, it's not our responsibility to support OldSolaris if they won't update libraries. Just by the way, I wonder if this was that bug: https://illumos.org/issues/1594 --

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-28 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: My perspective is that if both SmartOS and OmniOS pass, it's not our responsibility to support OldSolaris if they won't update libraries. Obviously I especially don't want to double the number of strxfrm() calls made during

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-28 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com writes: On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: My perspective is that if both SmartOS and OmniOS pass, it's not our responsibility to support OldSolaris if they won't update libraries. Obviously I especially don't want to double

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-28 Thread Thomas Munro
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Thomas Munro thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com writes: Just by the way, I wonder if this was that bug: https://illumos.org/issues/1594 Oooh. Might or might not be *same* bug, but it sure looks like it could have the right

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-28 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote: It hardly matters much, but I don't think that it is. I think the issue is entirely explained by sloppy code in the Solaris 8 stdlib. I don't imagine that it will come as a surprise to anybody, but the manpage [1] for

[HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-27 Thread Noah Misch
convert_string_datum() says: /* * Note: originally we guessed at a suitable output buffer size, and * only needed to call strxfrm twice if our guess was too small. * However, it seems that some versions of Solaris have buggy

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-27 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote: PostgreSQL 9.5 adds a strxfrm() call in bttext_abbrev_convert(), which does not account for the Solaris bug. I wish to determine whether that bug is still relevant today. If you have access to Solaris with the

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com writes: On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote: PostgreSQL 9.5 adds a strxfrm() call in bttext_abbrev_convert(), which does not account for the Solaris bug. I wish to determine whether that bug is still relevant today. If you have

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-27 Thread Oskari Saarenmaa
27.06.2015, 19:51, Noah Misch kirjoitti: convert_string_datum() says: /* * Note: originally we guessed at a suitable output buffer size, and * only needed to call strxfrm twice if our guess was too small. * However, it seems that

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-27 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I think the point of Noah's query is to find out whether ancient is an accurate description. If indeed nothing newer than Solaris 8 exhibits the bug, I'd be okay with not working around it, but otherwise we have some