Re: Not quite a security hole in internal_in

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Not quite a security hole in internal_in
Date: 2009-06-09 17:16:57
Message-ID: 4A2E9909.5030700@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Normally we would consider a pg_proc change as requiring a catversion
> bump. Since we are already past 8.4 beta we couldn't do that without
> forcing an initdb for beta testers. What I'd like to do about this
> is change the proisstrict settings in pg_proc.h but not bump catversion.
> This will ensure the fix is in place and protecting future coding,
> although possibly not getting enforced in 8.4 production instances that
> were upgraded from beta (if there are any such).
>
>
>

How common is this scenario? It's certainly not something I ever do.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florian Weimer 2009-06-09 17:19:10 Re: Multicolumn index corruption on 8.4 beta 2
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2009-06-09 17:14:33 Re: Multicolumn index corruption on 8.4 beta 2