Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
От | Bertrand Drouvot |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Zd7o2hSVQiTA3NVs@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby (shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 12:29:01PM +0530, shveta malik wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 8:49 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Few comments: > > Thanks for the feedback. > > > =============== > > 1. > > - if (logical) > > + if (logical || !replication) > > { > > > > Can we add a comment about connection types that require > > ALWAYS_SECURE_SEARCH_PATH_SQL? > > > > 2. > > Can we add a test case to demonstrate that the '=' operator can be > > hijacked to do different things when the slotsync worker didn't use > > ALWAYS_SECURE_SEARCH_PATH_SQL? > > > > Here is the patch with new test added and improved comments. Thanks! A few comments: 1 === + * used to run normal SQL queries s/run normal SQL/run SQL/ ? As mentioned up-thread I don't like that much the idea of creating such a test but if we do then here are my comments: 2 === +CREATE FUNCTION myschema.myintne(bigint, int) Should we explain why 'bigint, int' is important here (instead of 'int, int')? 3 === +# stage of syncing newly created slots. If the worker was not prepared +# to handle such attacks, it would have failed during Worth to mention the underlying check / function that would get an "unexpected" result? Except for the above (nit) comments the patch looks good to me. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: