Horton

Re: BUG #17995: Segmentation fault caused by UPDATE statement

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, zuming.jiang@inf.ethz.ch, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2023-06-26T04:27:08Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs 
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 06:00:00AM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
>> BTW, there is a commitfest entry to eliminate a bunch of other stack
>> overflow hazards (may be the fuzzer can find some of them too):
>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/43/4239/

> Thanks for the pointer, I'll double-check that.  Some of the locations
> of stack depth checks proposed involve performance-sensitive code
> paths, though, like mcxt.c :/

I hadn't looked at the patch yet, but ... mcxt.c?  How is that recursive?
Even if there is some path that recurses through that, wouldn't the
check be better placed in a less-hot part of the loop?

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Check for interrupts and stack overflow in TParserGet().

  2. Doc: Clarify the behavior of triggers/rules in a logical subscriber.