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

Re: revised patch for PL/PgSQL table functions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: revised patch for PL/PgSQL table functions
Date: 2002-08-31 00:23:18
Message-ID: 7052.1030753398@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
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

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Joe ConwayDate: 2002-08-31 00:28:41
Subject: Re: revised patch for PL/PgSQL table functions
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2002-08-30 23:02:47
Subject: CLUSTER all tables

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