Re: [BUGS] DBD::Pg 'lo_read' fails on >= 32768 byte large objects

2003-08-24 Thread Kevin Houle
Tom Lane wrote: Kevin Houle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The nature of the bug is that an 'lo_read' operation performed with DBD::Pg caused a segfault with postgresql-libs-7.3.2 and "hangs" on files >= 32768 bytes with postgresql-libs-7.3.4. The hang is actuall

Re: [BUGS] DBD::Pg 'lo_read' fails on >= 32768 byte large objects

2003-08-16 Thread Kevin Houle
Kevin Houle wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Kevin Houle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Is it just me, or are both sides reading waiting for the other side to send data? Sure looks like it. Could it be an OpenSSL bug? One more data point. The DBD::Pg 'lo_extract' function works fine acro

Re: [BUGS] DBD::Pg 'lo_read' fails on >= 32768 byte large objects

2003-08-16 Thread Kevin Houle
Tom Lane wrote: Kevin Houle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Is it just me, or are both sides reading waiting for the other side to send data? Sure looks like it. Could it be an OpenSSL bug? One more data point. The DBD::Pg 'lo_extract' function works fine across SSL. There is no

Re: [BUGS] DBD::Pg 'lo_read' fails on >= 32768 byte large objects

2003-08-16 Thread Kevin Houle
Kevin Houle wrote: One more data point. The DBD::Pg 'lo_extract' function works fine across SSL. There is no issue with large objects >= 32K using 'lo_extract'. So that casts doubt on it being an OpenSSL issue. Is there a different code path within libpq.so to move data

Re: [BUGS] DBD::Pg 'lo_read' fails on >= 32768 byte large objects

2003-08-16 Thread Kevin Houle
Tom Lane wrote: Kevin Houle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Is it just me, or are both sides reading waiting for the other side to send data? Sure looks like it. Could it be an OpenSSL bug? Well, redhat-9 ships with openssl-0.9.7a so I tried it with openssl-0.9.7b and lo_read still caused

Re: [BUGS] DBD::Pg 'lo_read' fails on >= 32768 byte large objects

2003-08-15 Thread Kevin Houle
--On Friday, August 15, 2003 02:09:32 PM -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In 7.3.2 pqsecure_read will recurse to self when SSL_read returns SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ. I changed the recursion to a loop in 7.3.4. Evidently, in 7.3.2 it's possible for the recursion to overflow your alloted stack

Re: [BUGS] DBD::Pg 'lo_read' fails on >= 32768 byte large objects

2003-08-15 Thread Kevin Houle
--On Friday, August 15, 2003 08:43:23 AM -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin Houle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The nature of the bug is that an 'lo_read' operation performed with DBD::Pg caused a segfault with postgresql-libs-7.3.2 and "hangs" on file

[BUGS] DBD::Pg 'lo_read' fails on >= 32768 byte large objects

2003-08-14 Thread Kevin Houle
Hello, There appears to be a bug in the code used by DBD::Pg's 'lo_read' function. I presume the code with the bug is a part of libpq, and thus the postgresql-libs RPM binary distribution. The nature of the bug is that an 'lo_read' operation performed with DBD::Pg caused a segfault with postgresql

Re: [BUGS] UNIQUE INDEX difference between 7.2 and 7.3

2003-08-14 Thread Kevin Houle
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - --On Tuesday, August 12, 2003 08:18:53 AM -0700 Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .bigpanda.com> wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Kevin Houle wrote: System Configuration - -- Architecture : i686 Operating System : RH9, 2.4

[BUGS] UNIQUE INDEX difference between 7.2 and 7.3

2003-08-14 Thread Kevin Houle
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Your name : Kevin Houle Your email address : [EMAIL PROTECTED] System Configuration - -- Architecture : i686 Operating System : RH9, 2.4.20-19 PostgreSQL version : PostgreSQL-7.3.4 (RPMS from PGDG) Please

Re: [BUGS] UNIQUE INDEX difference between 7.2 and 7.3

2003-08-14 Thread Kevin Houle
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - --On Tuesday, August 12, 2003 08:47:08 AM -0700 Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .bigpanda.com> wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Kevin Houle wrote: >> There is an email attachment (md5: 5cc780da645df9516235d43d1cf1e8b5) >> which co