Обсуждение: Bug on pg_lesslog
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. Warmest Regards; ---------- Koichi Suzuki
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? > > Warmest Regards; > > ---------- > Koichi Suzuki > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I (fortunately) caught it during TESTING of my archives - before I needed them.
-- Karl Denninger
I certainly think so. Anyone who gets caught "by surprise" on this could quite possibly lose all their data!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 (fortunately) caught it during TESTING of my archives - before I needed them.
-- Karl Denninger
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 <karl@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 > >
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.szk@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 <karl@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 >> >> >