Re: tighten generic_option_name, or store more carefully in catalog?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Chapman Flack <jcflack(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: tighten generic_option_name, or store more carefully in catalog?
Date: 2025-06-02 18:13:43
Message-ID: 557970.1748888023@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Here's a proposed patch for the "=" issue. Whether or not we should
rethink FDW validation behavior, doing so surely couldn't be
back-patched. But I think this much should be.

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
v1-disallow-equal-in-option-names.patch text/x-diff 3.1 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Yura Sokolov 2025-06-02 18:20:33 Re: SpinLockAcquire and SpinLockRelease is broken on ARM/ARM64? (Re: sinvaladt.c: remove msgnumLock, use atomic operations on maxMsgNum)
Previous Message Sami Imseih 2025-06-02 17:46:51 Re: pg_get_multixact_members not documented