Re: Bad Data back Door

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bad Data back Door
Date: 2012-10-06 17:34:36
Message-ID: A1176DA3-B32B-4396-A820-78E7CF9C9C0F@justatheory.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Oct 5, 2012, at 6:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Probably not so much "assumed" as "nobody thought about it". In
> e.g. plperl we expend the cycles to do encoding validity checking on
> *every* string entering the system from Perl. I'm not sure why foreign
> tables ought to get a pass on that, especially when you consider the
> communication overhead that the encoding check would be amortized
> against.

Yes, that’s what I was thinking.

> Now, having said that, I think it has to be the reponsibility of the FDW
> to apply any required check ... which makes this a bug report against
> oracle_fdw, not the core system. (FWIW, contrib/file_fdw depends on the
> COPY code, which will check encoding.)

I agree that this is a bug in oracle_fdw (well, potentially; ultimately, it’s Oracle that’s lying about the encoding of those text values). But I think that it would be much more useful overall -- not to mention more database-like -- for PostgreSQL to provide a way to enforce it. That is, to consider foreign tables to be an input like COPY or SQL, and to validate values before displaying them.

Best,

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Atri Sharma 2012-10-06 17:37:02 Re: Bad Data back Door
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-10-06 14:59:47 Re: Add FET to Default and Europe.txt