> 22 дек. 2020 г., в 23:15, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com>
> написал(а):
>
>
>
> On 12/22/20 6:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 6:24 AM Daniil Zakhlystov
>> <usernam...@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>>> When using bidirectional compression, Postgres resource usage correlates
>>> with the selected compression level. For example, here is the Postgresql
>>> application memory usage:
>>>
>>> No compression - 1.2 GiB
>>>
>>> ZSTD
>>> zstd:1 - 1.4 GiB
>>> zstd:7 - 4.0 GiB
>>> zstd:13 - 17.7 GiB
>>> zstd:19 - 56.3 GiB
>>> zstd:20 - 109.8 GiB - did not succeed
>>> zstd:21, zstd:22 > 140 GiB
>>> Postgres process crashes (out of memory)
>> Good grief. So, suppose we add compression and support zstd. Then, can
>> unprivileged user capable of connecting to the database can negotiate
>> for zstd level 1 and then choose to actually send data compressed at
>> zstd level 22, crashing the server if it doesn't have a crapton of
>> memory? Honestly, I wouldn't blame somebody for filing a CVE if we
>> allowed that sort of thing to happen. I'm not sure what the solution
>> is, but we can't leave a way for a malicious client to consume 140GB
>> of memory on the server *per connection*. I assumed decompression
>> memory was going to measured in kB or MB, not GB. Honestly, even at
>> say L7, if you've got max_connections=100 and a user who wants to make
>> trouble, you have a really big problem.
>> Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic here, but man that's a lot of memory.
>
> Maybe I'm just confused, but my assumption was this means there's a memory
> leak somewhere - that we're not resetting/freeing some piece of memory, or
> so. Why would zstd need so much memory? It seems like a pretty serious
> disadvantage, so how could it become so popular?
AFAIK it's 700 clients. Does not seem like super high price for big
traffic\latency reduction.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
