Re: Backport of CVE-2024-10978 fix to older pgsql versions (11, 9.6, and 9.4) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Backport of CVE-2024-10978 fix to older pgsql versions (11, 9.6, and 9.4)
Date
Msg-id Z3RZd4J--uLrKf8B@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Backport of CVE-2024-10978 fix to older pgsql versions (11, 9.6, and 9.4)  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Backport of CVE-2024-10978 fix to older pgsql versions (11, 9.6, and 9.4)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 01:47:19PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 1:30 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> 
>     On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 03:19:25PM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> 
>     > My thinking was "ask once, bump the thread once after 2 or 3 weeks just
>     > in case it got lost in the noise (this is a busy list), and after that
>     > let the matter rest if there is no answer".
> 
>     We don't normally ignore emails, so would not bother with a second
>     request.
> 
> 
> And yet the squeaky wheel does seem to get the grease; and I know from personal
> experience that emails will go unresponded two for weeks, which to a reasonable
> submitter to this list, when many responses are indeed the same day, seems like
> an email that got overlooked.

Yes, but we are explaining it was not overlooked, but rather no one
knows.  The odds of a reply are low, and the odds we just ignored it are
even lower.  If he does ask a second time for each backpatch, we are
likely to be even less motivated to help.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Document How Commit Handles Aborted Transactions
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: PoC: history of recent vacuum/checkpoint runs (using new hooks)