Re: [BUGS] [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Bug on pg_lesslog

2010-02-11 Thread Koichi Suzuki
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 eac

Re: [BUGS] [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Bug on pg_lesslog

2010-02-11 Thread Koichi Suzuki
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 : > 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 p

Re: [BUGS] [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Bug on pg_lesslog

2010-02-11 Thread Karl Denninger
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.