| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Hou, Zhijie" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Improper use about DatumGetInt32 |
| Date: | 2020-11-26 16:27:03 |
| Message-ID: | dc7424f1-7172-341c-45b8-f544b50d03ae@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-11-26 14:27, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Nov-26, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>> The point of the patch is to have the range check somewhere. If you just
>> cast it, then you won't notice out of range arguments. Note that other
>> contrib modules that take block numbers work the same way.
>
> I'm not saying not to do that; just saying we should not propagate it to
> places that don't need it. get_raw_page gets its page number from
> PG_GETARG_INT64(), and the range check should be there. But then it
> calls get_raw_page_internal, and it could pass a BlockNumber -- there's
> no need to pass an int64. So get_raw_page_internal does not need a
> range check.
Yeah, I had it like that for a moment, but then you need to duplicate
the check in get_raw_page() and get_raw_page_fork(). I figured since
get_raw_page_internal() does all the other argument checking also, it
seems sensible to put the block range check there too. But it's not a
big deal either way.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Paul Förster | 2020-11-26 16:32:23 | Re: configure and DocBook XML |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-11-26 16:21:56 | Re: configure and DocBook XML |