Hi,
On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 12:16 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Amit Langote
> <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> > On 2016/03/09 10:11, Amit Langote wrote:
> >> The attached revision addresses above and one of Horiguchi-san's comments
> >> in his email yesterday.
> >
> > I fixed one more issue in 0002 per Horiguchi-san's comment. Sorry about
> > so many versions.
>
> I've committed 0001 with heavy revisions. Just because we don't need
> an SQL-visible function to clear the command progress doesn't mean we
> don't need to clear it at all; rather, it has to happen automatically.
> I also did a bunch of identifier renaming, added datid to the view
> output, adjusted the comments, and so on. Please rebase the remainder
> of the series. Thanks.
I'm pretty sure this piece of code ends up accessing subscripts above
array bounds (and gcc 4.6.4 complains about that):
#define PG_STAT_GET_PROGRESS_COLS PGSTAT_NUM_PROGRESS_PARAM + 3
...
bool nulls[PG_STAT_GET_PROGRESS_COLS];
...
nulls[2] = true;
for (i = 1; i < PGSTAT_NUM_PROGRESS_PARAM + 1; i++)
nulls[i+3] = true;
Now let's say PARAM=10, which means COLS=13. The last index accessed by
the loop will be i=10, which means we'll do this:
nulls[13] = true;
which is above bounds.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
