Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: timetz range check issue

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: timetz range check issue
Date: 2007-12-22 05:16:12
Message-ID: 17025.1198300572@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com> writes:
> I think a range check is needed in timetz_recv & time_recv.

I think that the design philosophy for the binary I/O code is to be as
fast as safely possible, and accordingly range-checks are present only
where needed for the backend to defend itself.  Is there anything that
goes horribly wrong if a client shoves a bad zone offset at us?

(If we want to change this philosophy, I won't necessarily quibble,
but I don't think these two recv routines are the only ones that
would need to be tightened up.)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-12-22 05:19:23
Subject: Re: pgsql: Improve wording.
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-12-22 05:15:04
Subject: Re: pgsql: Improve wording.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group