Re: Not quite a security hole in internal_in

Tom Lane wrote:
> Normally we would consider a pg_proc change as requiring a catversion
> bump.  Since we are already past 8.4 beta we couldn't do that without
> forcing an initdb for beta testers.  What I'd like to do about this
> is change the proisstrict settings in pg_proc.h but not bump catversion.
> This will ensure the fix is in place and protecting future coding,
> although possibly not getting enforced in 8.4 production instances that
> were upgraded from beta (if there are any such).
>
>
>   

How common is this scenario? It's certainly not something I ever do.

cheers

andrew