Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> There is a rather nasty bug left (Sir Mordred would likely call it a
>> DOS possibility ;-)) --- RETURN NEXT doesn't seem to be checking that
>> the row or record variable it is given actually matches the declared
>> return type of the plpgsql function.
> Yes, I probably should have mentioned that.
I've applied a fix for this.
The fix actually uses the "expected tuple desc" that's now passed by
ExecMakeTableFunctionResult as the target descriptor. This should mean
that it'd be possible to support plpgsql functions returning RECORD, but
I didn't have time to look into that. Anyone want to try?
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Joe Conway||Date: 2002-08-31 00:28:41|
|Subject: Re: revised patch for PL/PgSQL table functions|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2002-08-30 23:02:47|
|Subject: CLUSTER all tables|