| From: | shihao zhong <zhong950419(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | daniel(at)yesql(dot)se |
| Cc: | mkumar(at)yugabyte(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: set_config(‘search_path’) does not truncate names over 63 bytes, unlike SET |
| Date: | 2026-11-04 21:05:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAGRkXqQsVegdUGRioXVCyihRG=VA2cB-QqWPRizEhP_ZQUCHGA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hi Daniel,
> I'm sure it isn't weakening protections to handle a synthetic case.
My original thought was that we already had a mechanism for messages
over 30k, so why not just reuse it.
Going back, if we want to fix this, I see two directions.
1. Client side. I guess your concern is that adding
PqMsg_ParameterStatus turns off the protection for all ParameterStatus
messages. I did that because other GUCs like application_name could
also run into this issue. But given there are only a handful of
GUC_REPORT parameters, I thought at first it might not be a big deal.
If we want to keep the fix on the client side, we may need a whitelist
for these GUCs which is complex
2. Limit the length in guc. A long value then fails with a normal guc
error instead of a disconnect. I can do it in a check hook one by one
or create a new mechanism to limit the size of string guc?
I feel if we want to do that in server side we can start with check hook
on these two GUC, what do you think?
Thanks,
Shihao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Previous Message | Andrey Rachitskiy | 2026-11-04 16:28:56 | Re: BUG #19621: Unexpected results of JSON_VALUE with DEFAULT ON EMPTY |