-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Any ideas about better answers?
Seems like you covered it - anything other than memcmp() is going
to require a lot of brainz and have lots of sharp edges.
> But this example shows that we'd really have to enforce the rule
> of "no ill-defined bytes" for just about every user-callable
> function's results, which is a pretty ugly prospect.
Why is that so ugly? Seems the most logical route. And even if
we don't get all of them right away (e.g. not 'enforced' right
away), we're no worse off than we are now, but we don't have to
dive into retraining equal() or touch any other parts of the code.
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201104262139
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Stephen Frost||Date: 2011-04-27 02:11:33|
|Subject: Re: branching for 9.2devel|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-04-26 23:39:49|
|Subject: Re: branching for 9.2devel |