Re: Not quite a security hole in internal_in

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Andrew Dunstan
Тема Re: Not quite a security hole in internal_in
Дата
Msg-id 4A2E9909.5030700@dunslane.net
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Not quite a security hole in internal_in  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: Not quite a security hole in internal_in  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers

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


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Josh Berkus
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Multicolumn index corruption on 8.4 beta 2
Следующее
От: Florian Weimer
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Multicolumn index corruption on 8.4 beta 2