Re: timetz range check issue

From: Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: timetz range check issue
Date: 2007-12-22 14:40:15
Message-ID: 476D21CF.6060401@esilo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>Tom Lane wrote:
>>range-checks are present only where needed for the backend to defend itself

Survival is very important, but so is maintaining data integrity. IMHO, data
validation should be as consistent as possible. If the backend refuses data on
one hand but allows it on the other, confusion sets in. I realize that binary
input can't always be 100% validated, but a best effort is good form. It looks
like most recv funcs already have checks, where a check is somewhat meaningful.

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message D'Arcy J.M. Cain 2007-12-22 15:04:19 Re: Spoofing as the postmaster
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2007-12-22 14:25:05 Spoofing as the postmaster