Bug on pg_lesslog

On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 23:39 +0900, Koichi Suzuki wrote:

Dear Folks;

A very serious bug was reported on pg_lesslog. So far, I found it's
a bug in pg_compresslog. Please do not use pg_compresslog and
pg_decompresslog until improved version is uploaded.

I strongly advise to take base backup of your database.

I apologize for inconvenience. I'll upload the new version ASAP.

Should this go out on announce?

Warmest Regards;

----------
Koichi Suzuki

--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.

Joshua D. Drake wrote:

On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 23:39 +0900, Koichi Suzuki wrote:

Dear Folks;

A very serious bug was reported on pg_lesslog. So far, I found it's
a bug in pg_compresslog. Please do not use pg_compresslog and
pg_decompresslog until improved version is uploaded.

I strongly advise to take base backup of your database.

I apologize for inconvenience. I'll upload the new version ASAP.

Should this go out on announce?

I certainly think so. Anyone who gets caught "by surprise" on this
could quite possibly lose all their data!

I (fortunately) caught it during TESTING of my archives - before I
needed them.

-- Karl Denninger

Thank you very much for the advice. Yes I think it should go to
announce. I will post a message.
----------
Koichi Suzuki

2010/2/12 Karl Denninger <karl@denninger.net>:

In addition, in the fix, I'm thinking I should add at least the
following check mechanism;

1. Check XNOOP record size to match the original WAL record.
2. Restore WAL segment at the time of pg_compress, compare restored
WAL with the original and check it is safe to use in the restoration,
both each WAL record and whole WAL segment.

----------
Koichi Suzuki

2010/2/12 Koichi Suzuki <koichi.szk@gmail.com>: