| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Dhanaraj M <Dhanaraj(dot)M(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Have psql show current sequnce values - (Resubmission) |
| Date: | 2006-09-04 19:33:00 |
| Message-ID: | 11107.1157398380@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Dhanaraj M <Dhanaraj(dot)M(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
> Sorry for resubmitting this patch.
> Just now I found a problem.
> Instead of assigning initial sequence value to 1,
> I assign LLONG_MAX to avoid the buffer overflow problem.
> Please find the current version here.
This patch is a mess. In the first place, it's completely unkosher for
an application to scribble on a PGresult's contents, even if you do take
steps like the above to try to make sure there's enough space. But said
step does not work anyway -- LLONG_MAX might not exist on the client, or
might exist but be smaller than the server's value.
Another problem with it is it's not schema-aware and not proof against
quoting requirements for the sequence name (try it with a mixed-case
sequence name for instance). It also ought to pay some attention to
the possibility that the SELECT for last_value fails --- quite aside
from communication failure or such, there might be a permissions problem
preventing the last_value from being read.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-09-04 19:35:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Interval month, week -> day |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-04 19:19:44 | Re: setseed() doc |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-09-04 19:35:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Interval month, week -> day |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-04 19:19:44 | Re: setseed() doc |