On 12.12.2011 20:55, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Monday, December 12, 2011 07:48:01 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund<andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>>> On Monday, December 12, 2011 09:29:23 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>> Revert the behavior of inet/cidr functions to not unpack the arguments.
>>> Whats the plan to handle this wrt a stable release?
>> I was wondering whether we shouldn't revert the original patch
>> altogether in the back branches. As far as I'd heard, there were
>> no reports of the previous coding causing real trouble, and this
>> episode demonstrates that there is a possibility to make things
>> worse rather than better. I think maybe we'd better treat this
>> change as something to make in HEAD only.
Zoltan's original complaint was real, and he bumped into it in 9.1 and
9.0. There are few people using these macros in third party code, so I
doubt we'll hear many reports either way.
The memory leak should be fixed now, and I don't foresee any new issues
cropping up, so I'm not inclined to revert it anymore. Within PostgreSQL
itself, I couldn't find any more references to these macros.
If we do revert, I think we should still leave the DatumGetInetPP()
macro in place. It would be identical to DatumGetInetP(), neither would
unpack, but DatumGetInetPP() would be the preferred macro to use for
In response to
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2011-12-13 08:58:48|
|Subject: Re: pgsql: Revert the behavior of inet/cidr functions
to not unpack the arg|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-12-12 21:22:52|
|Subject: pgsql: Move BKP_REMOVABLE bit from individual WAL records to WAL pageh|