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

Re: timetz range check issue

From: Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 14:40:15
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
 >Tom Lane wrote:
 >>range-checks are present only where needed for the backend to defend itself

Survival is very important, but so is maintaining data integrity.  IMHO, data 
validation should be as consistent as possible.  If the backend refuses data on 
one hand but allows it on the other, confusion sets in.  I realize that binary 
input can't always be 100% validated, but a best effort is good form.  It looks 
like most recv funcs already have checks, where a check is somewhat meaningful.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: D'Arcy J.M. CainDate: 2007-12-22 15:04:19
Subject: Re: Spoofing as the postmaster
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-12-22 14:25:05
Subject: Spoofing as the postmaster

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group