We could make the query string dynamicly size it self with a realloc or
somthing to that effect, then the question just would be would that open
up a DDoS of some sort... But just for the utils and such that might come
accross a query larger than the default it might solve and issue such as
this one?

-leif

On Fri, August 4, 2006 2:11 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>

> A NOTE has been added to this issue.
> ======================================================================
> http://www.dbmail.org/mantis/view.php?id=390
> ======================================================================
> Reported By:                jnorell
> Assigned To:
> ======================================================================
> Project:                    DBMail
> Issue ID:                   390
> Category:                   Command-Line programs (dbmail-users,
> dbmail-util) Reproducibility:            always
> Severity:                   block
> Priority:                   normal
> Status:                     new
> target:
> ======================================================================
> Date Submitted:             03-Aug-06 20:19 CEST
> Last Modified:              04-Aug-06 20:11 CEST
> ======================================================================
> Summary:                    DEF_QUERYSIZE too small
> Description:
> DEF_QUERYSIZE is currently 1024, causing db_set_isheader() to fail during
> dbmail-util -ay.
>
> Repairing DBMAIL for incorrect is_header flags...
> Ok. Found [4291] incorrect is_header flags.
> Error dbpgsql.c, db_query: Error executing query [UPDATE
> dbmail_messageblks SET is_header = '1' WHERE messageblk_idnr IN
> (93793903,98060014,98077374,99083639,99084409,99198119,99198261,99219437,
> 99546559,99911465,101252056,101268114,101707614,102670265,102927551,10366
> 8187,103715340,104823570,105023569,105178339,106255768,107202646,10727114
> 7,109169596,109198078,109670036,109863443,109868049,109884055,109903270,1
> 09911632,109912467,109914168,109928479,109938422,109945972,109953386,1099
> 62557,109966403,109986404,109993587,110017640,110018292,110028237,1100337
> 08,110036495,110054553,110056874,110060590,110066643,110067484,110077596,
> 110077753,110078354,110086154,110130349,110130776,110143373,110144375,110
> 158164,110160247,110167293,110169681,110187387,110210148,110211965,110212
> 061,110223102,110223960,110225223,110235523,110243032,110254844,110260252
> ,110268562,110330175,110429441,110551666,110667559,110775322,110859792,11
> 0883271,110896930,110921282,110930608,110946869,110956154,110980251,11099
> 0557,111030305,111033592,111040643,111057696,111093491,111119017,11114388
> 0,1]
> : [ERROR:  syntax error at end of input at character 1024
> ]
>
>
> Error db.c,db_set_isheader: could not access messageblks table
> Error setting the is_header flags
>
>
> ======================================================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> aaron - 04-Aug-06 12:41
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I count 96 commas in that query. Tell me if changing the value 100 in the
> call to g_list_slices down to, say, 90 fixes this. You'll probably have to
>  zap all of the is_header values before testing it again.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> jnorell - 04-Aug-06 20:11
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, cutting down to 90 gets that to run.  To size the correctly, what's
> the largest (in # digits) numbers that would ever be there?  We've got 9
> digits, but if you had 10, that would again go over the 1024 chars.
>
> Issue History
> Date Modified   Username       Field                    Change
> ======================================================================
> 03-Aug-06 20:19 jnorell        New Issue
> 04-Aug-06 12:41 aaron          Note Added: 0001330
> 04-Aug-06 20:11 jnorell        Note Added: 0001331
> ======================================================================
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dbmail-dev mailing list
> Dbmail-dev@dbmail.org
> http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev
>
>


Reply via email to