On 01/08/2025 00:48, Jacob Champion wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 11:11 AM Jacob Champion
<[email protected]> wrote:
The attached still needs some documentation work
v2 does a bunch of commit message work, but I imagine it needs a good
bit of copy-editing for clarity.
I'm not in any hurry to smash this in. I think we still need
- independent verification of the architectural issue, to make sure
it's not any deeper or shallower than pqReadData()
- independent verification that this fixes the bugs that have been described
- measurement of the performance characteristics of the new code
- verification of the maximum amount of additional buffer memory that
can be consumed during the drain
- consensus that we want to maintain this new behavior
- discussion of what we want this code to look like going forward
Andres, does this patch help clarify my thoughts upthread? Ideally the
additional code isn't getting in the way of any future
rearchitectures, since it only pins the new requirement in the code
that needs it.
A customer just ran into this issue and it took the team and I a few
days to debug until I remembered this thread. We're running PostgreSQL
with no changes to the networking parts, but there's a proxy in between
that decrypts and re-encrypts the TLS traffic. So I'm now motivated to
get this fixed :-).
I'll start reviewing the patch, but in the meanwhile, Jacob, could you
share the reproducer and any other testing scripts you have that might
be useful here?
- Heikki
