| From: | zengman <zengman(at)halodbtech(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dharin Shah <dharinshah95(at)gmail(dot)com>, VASUKI M <vasukianand0119(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, surya poondla <suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] psql: tab completion for ALTER ROLE ... IN DATABASE ... |
| Date: | 2026-01-06 13:34:15 |
| Message-ID: | tencent_2621C1176740DE09618668E5@qq.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> That guard was actually my suggestion in review, and the reason is that it’s protecting the PQescapeLiteral() calls, not exec_query().
> In the RESET completion branch we call PQescapeLiteral(pset.db, ...) to safely quote the role/dbname before we even build the SQL string. That happens before COMPLETE_WITH_QUERY_PLUS ever reaches complete_from_query() / exec_query(). So while exec_query() does guard query execution when pset.db is null or not CONNECTION_OK, it doesn’t p> revent us from passing a null conn into PQescapeLiteral(), which could crash or otherwise misbehave.
> If we don’t have a usable connection, we can’t reliably quote and run the catalog query anyway, so falling back to a static completion like ALL seems like the safest behavior. Hence I think it's valid.
Hi,
Thank you both for clarifying my confusion. I hadn't paid much attention to `PQescapeLiteral` earlier.
I checked the function, and it should return NULL on failure.
```
q_role = PQescapeLiteral(pset.db, role, strlen(role));
q_dbname = PQescapeLiteral(pset.db, dbname, strlen(dbname));
if (!q_role || !q_dbname)
{
/* If quoting fails, just fall back to ALL */
if (q_role)
PQfreemem(q_role);
if (q_dbname)
PQfreemem(q_dbname);
COMPLETE_WITH("ALL");
}
```
When `pset.db` is NULL or for other reasons (resulting in q_role/q_dbname being NULL), `!q_role || !q_dbname` will be hit — this already meets our needs.
I wonder if this understanding is correct — what do you think?
--
Regards,
Man Zeng
www.openhalo.org
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2026-01-06 13:43:59 | Re: Typos in the code and README |
| Previous Message | Pavlo Golub | 2026-01-06 13:32:16 | Re[2]: [PATCH] Add pg_current_vxact_id() function to expose virtual transaction IDs |