pgsql: Fix failure to verify PGC_[SU_]BACKEND GUCs in pg_file_settings
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | pgsql: Fix failure to verify PGC_[SU_]BACKEND GUCs in pg_file_settings |
Дата | |
Msg-id | E1rIGNB-00C3th-5b@gemulon.postgresql.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Список | pgsql-committers |
Fix failure to verify PGC_[SU_]BACKEND GUCs in pg_file_settings view. set_config_option() bails out early if it detects that the option to be set is PGC_BACKEND or PGC_SU_BACKEND class and we're reading the config file in a postmaster child; we don't want to apply any new value in such a case. That's fine as far as it goes, but it fails to consider the requirements of the pg_file_settings view: for that, we need to check validity of the value even though we have no intention to apply it. Because we didn't, even very silly values for affected GUCs would be reported as valid by the view. There are only half a dozen such GUCs, which perhaps explains why this got overlooked for so long. Fix by continuing when changeVal is false; this parallels the logic in some other early-exit paths. Also, the check added by commit 924bcf4f1 to prevent GUC changes in parallel workers seems a few bricks shy of a load: it's evidently assuming that ereport(elevel, ...) won't return. Make sure we bail out if it does. The lack of trouble reports suggests that this is only a latent bug, i.e. parallel workers don't actually reach here with elevel < ERROR. (Per the code coverage report, we never reach here at all in the regression suite.) But we clearly don't want to risk proceeding if that does happen. Per report from Rıdvan Korkmaz. These are ancient bugs, so back-patch to all supported branches. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2089235.1703617353@sss.pgh.pa.us Branch ------ REL_13_STABLE Details ------- https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/cb88f44ec805a338eafe8b88c8f25b6eb1be5838 Modified Files -------------- src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c | 9 ++++++++- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: