Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Bug on pg_lesslog
Joshua D. Drake wrote: On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 23:39 +0900, Koichi Suzuki wrote: Dear Folks; A very serious bug was reported on pg_lesslog. So far, I found it's a bug in pg_compresslog. Please do not use pg_compresslog and pg_decompresslog until improved version is uploaded. I strongly advise to take base backup of your database. I apologize for inconvenience. I'll upload the new version ASAP. Should this go out on announce? I certainly think so. Anyone who gets caught by surprise on this could quite possibly lose all their data! I (fortunately) caught it during TESTING of my archives - before I needed them. -- Karl Denninger attachment: karl.vcf -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Bug on pg_lesslog
Thank you very much for the advice. Yes I think it should go to announce. I will post a message. -- Koichi Suzuki 2010/2/12 Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net: Joshua D. Drake wrote: On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 23:39 +0900, Koichi Suzuki wrote: Dear Folks; A very serious bug was reported on pg_lesslog. So far, I found it's a bug in pg_compresslog. Please do not use pg_compresslog and pg_decompresslog until improved version is uploaded. I strongly advise to take base backup of your database. I apologize for inconvenience. I'll upload the new version ASAP. Should this go out on announce? I certainly think so. Anyone who gets caught by surprise on this could quite possibly lose all their data! I (fortunately) caught it during TESTING of my archives - before I needed them. -- Karl Denninger -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Bug on pg_lesslog
In addition, in the fix, I'm thinking I should add at least the following check mechanism; 1. Check XNOOP record size to match the original WAL record. 2. Restore WAL segment at the time of pg_compress, compare restored WAL with the original and check it is safe to use in the restoration, both each WAL record and whole WAL segment. -- Koichi Suzuki 2010/2/12 Koichi Suzuki koichi@gmail.com: Thank you very much for the advice. Yes I think it should go to announce. I will post a message. -- Koichi Suzuki 2010/2/12 Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net: Joshua D. Drake wrote: On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 23:39 +0900, Koichi Suzuki wrote: Dear Folks; A very serious bug was reported on pg_lesslog. So far, I found it's a bug in pg_compresslog. Please do not use pg_compresslog and pg_decompresslog until improved version is uploaded. I strongly advise to take base backup of your database. I apologize for inconvenience. I'll upload the new version ASAP. Should this go out on announce? I certainly think so. Anyone who gets caught by surprise on this could quite possibly lose all their data! I (fortunately) caught it during TESTING of my archives - before I needed them. -- Karl Denninger -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
