| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Propagate sanity checks of ProcessUtility() to standard_ProcessUtility()? |
| Date: | 2024-02-29 07:20:53 |
| Message-ID: | ZeAwVfUqGtRCx8ux@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi all,
It's been brought to me that an extension may finish by breaking the
assumptions ProcessUtility() relies on when calling
standard_ProcessUtility(), causing breakages when passing down data to
cascading utility hooks.
Isn't the state of the arguments given something we should check not
only in the main entry point ProcessUtility() but also in
standard_ProcessUtility(), to prevent issues if an extension
incorrectly manipulates the arguments it needs to pass down to other
modules that use the utility hook, like using a NULL query string?
See the attached for the idea.
Thanks,
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| utility-checks.patch | text/x-diff | 1.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jian he | 2024-02-29 08:10:26 | Re: Propagate sanity checks of ProcessUtility() to standard_ProcessUtility()? |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2024-02-29 07:18:14 | Re: Infinite loop in XLogPageRead() on standby |