Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements

Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 01:03:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> + * readOnlyTree: treat pstmt's node tree as read-only

> Maybe it's because I'm not a native english speaker, or because it's quite
> late here, but I don't find "treat as read-only" really clear. I don't have a
> concise better wording to suggest.

Maybe "if true, pstmt's node tree must not be modified" ?

>> Still thinking about which way to fix it in the back branches.

> I'm +0.5 for a narrow fix, due to the possibility of unspotted similar problem
> vs possibility of performance regression ratio.

After sleeping on it another day, I'm inclined to think the same. The
key attraction of a centralized fix is that it prevents the possibility
of new bugs of the same ilk in newly-added features. Given how long
these CREATE/ALTER DOMAIN bugs escaped detection, it's hard to have
full confidence that there are no others in the back branches --- but
they must be in really lightly-used features.

regards, tom lane