Re: Re: [PATCHES] Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal

From: "Joe Conway" <joseph(dot)conway(at)home(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCHES] Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal
Date: 2001-06-14 01:37:00
Message-ID: 009901c0f472$829e85d0$d7d310ac@jecw2k1
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

>
> Too late ;-). I just finished ripping out the unneeded parts and
> applying.

Thanks! I take it I still need to do the documentation though ;)

>
> I made a few minor changes too, mostly removing unnecessary code
> (you don't need to call nameout, everyone else just uses NameStr)
> and trying to line up stylistically with other code. One actual
> bug noted: you were doing this in a couple of places:
>

Once again, thanks for the "important safety tips". I saw references to this
trap in the comments, and therefore should have known better. I guess only
practice makes perfect (hopefully!).

-- Joe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-06-14 01:40:55 Re: Re: [PATCHES] Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-06-14 01:27:20 Re: Re: [PATCHES] Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-06-14 01:40:55 Re: Re: [PATCHES] Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-06-14 01:27:20 Re: Re: [PATCHES] Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal