Обсуждение: BUG #2954: null is not checked against domain constraints in return clause
BUG #2954: null is not checked against domain constraints in return clause
От
"Sergiy Vyshnevetskiy"
Дата:
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 2954 Logged by: Sergiy Vyshnevetskiy Email address: serg@vostok.net PostgreSQL version: 8.2.1 Operating system: FreeBSD-6 stable Description: null is not checked against domain constraints in return clause Details: #psql = serg@[local]:5432 test create domain "DInt" as int not null; CREATE DOMAIN #psql = serg@[local]:5432 test create or replace function test() returns "DInt" immutable strict language plpgsql as $F$begin return null; end$F$; CREATE FUNCTION #psql = serg@[local]:5432 test select test() is null; ?column? ---------- t (1 запиÑÑ) #psql = serg@[local]:5432 test We should have gotten an error during execution of test().
Re: BUG #2954: null is not checked against domain constraints in return clause
От
Sergiy Vyshnevetskiy
Дата:
I believe the bug to be here:
/* Normal case for scalar results */
estate->retval = exec_eval_expr(estate, stmt->expr,
&(estate->retisnull),
&(estate->rettype));
in exec_stmt_return() in pl_exec.c.
As I understand it, exec_eval_expr overwrites(!) estate->rettype instead
of casting the result to it.
What should be done is something like:
Datum value;
Oid valtype;
value = exec_eval_expr(estate, stmt->expr, &(estate->retisnull),
&valtype);
estate->retval = exec_cast_value(value, valtype, estate->rettype,
reqinput,
reqioparam,
reqtypmod,
estate->retisnull);
but where to get reqinput, reqioparam and reqtypmod? They should be
accessed through estate pointer, I think.
Sergiy Vyshnevetskiy <serg@vostok.net> writes:
> I believe the bug to be here:
> /* Normal case for scalar results */
> estate->retval = exec_eval_expr(estate, stmt->expr,
> &(estate->retisnull),
> &(estate->rettype));
> in exec_stmt_return() in pl_exec.c.
No, I don't think that code is wrong, the problem is that it's never
reached. See the
else if (!estate.retisnull)
line a bit further up. Probably you can fix it with a small change to
check type strictness there.
regards, tom lane