From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | balazs(at)obiserver(dot)hu, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? |
Date: | 2017-09-23 03:19:52 |
Message-ID: | 28968.1506136792@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 09/22/2017 05:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not sure if that qualifies as a stop-ship problem, but it ain't
>> good, for sure. We need to look at whether we should revert 15bc038f9
>> or somehow revise its rules.
> I wonder if we wouldn't be better
> doing this more directly, keeping a per-transaction hash of unsafe enum
> values (which will almost always be empty). It might even speed up the
> check.
Yeah, I was considering the same thing over dinner, though I'd phrase
it oppositely: keep a list of enum type OIDs created in the current
transaction, so that we could whitelist them. This could maybe become
a problem if someone created a zillion enums in one xact, though.
The immediate question is do we care to design/implement such a thing
post-RC1. I'd have to vote "no". I think the most prudent thing to
do is revert 15bc038f9 and then have another go at it during the v11
cycle.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2017-09-23 12:41:25 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-09-23 03:01:29 | Re: Multiple evaluation of single reference to function with out parameters |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-09-23 03:45:35 | pgbench - use enum for meta commands |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-09-23 01:53:02 | Re: CREATE COLLATION does not sanitize ICU's BCP 47 language tags. Should it? |