| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix an ancient oversight in libpq's handling of V3-protocol COPY |
| Date: | 2008-01-15 22:00:30 |
| Message-ID: | 1200434430.4266.1809.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 16:37 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neither of those events could trigger it, because neither would be
> processed midstream during a COPY (in the current code, anyway).
OK, thanks.
> As best I can tell:
>
> * NOTICE messages are a risk, especially if you have a more-verbose-
> than-normal client_min_messages setting.
>
> * ParameterStatus could be a risk if a function executed during COPY
> tried to change one of the above-mentioned parameters. Since COPY OUT
> doesn't fire triggers, I think user-defined datatype output functions
> would be the only possible candidates for that.
Understood
> * LISTEN/NOTIFY isn't a risk because the backend only sends NOTIFY at
> transaction end, period.
OK, just seen the comment section above the case statement.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-15 22:18:20 | pgsql: Be less wishy-washy in the documentation and comments about |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-15 21:48:02 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix an ancient oversight in libpq's handling of V3-protocol COPY |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Roberts, Jon | 2008-01-15 22:11:16 | Password policy |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-15 21:48:02 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix an ancient oversight in libpq's handling of V3-protocol COPY |