Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 02:21:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, from Jim Jones' result upthread, a "minor update" of libxml2
>> could also have caused this problem: 2.9.7 and 2.9.14 behave
>> differently. So we don't have sole control --- or sole responsibility
>> --- here.
> This sentence is incorrect after I have double-checked the behaviors I
> am seeing based on local builds of libxml2 2.9.7 and 2.9.14.
Hmm, okay, I misread Jim's results then. But there still remains
the big question: what reason is there to believe that it's safe
to return to the old behavior? If newer libxml2 versions report
XML_ERR_RESOURCE_LIMIT on the same input, doesn't it seem likely
that there's a live hazard in the old code?
regards, tom lane
