Re: Segmentation fault using digest from pg_crypto - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Segmentation fault using digest from pg_crypto
Date
Msg-id 200711041543.lA4FhWh28775@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Segmentation fault using digest from pg_crypto  ("Marko Kreen" <markokr@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Segmentation fault using digest from pg_crypto  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 8/24/07, Manuel Sugawara <masm@fciencias.unam.mx> wrote:
> > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> > > Manuel Sugawara <masm@fciencias.unam.mx> writes:
> > >> "Marko Kreen" <markokr@gmail.com> writes:
> > >>> In 8.0 the pgcrypto functions were non-strict and checked for NULLs.
> > >>> In 8.1 they were made STRICT.
> > >>> In 8.2 the NULL check were removed from code.
> > >
> > >> Not an smart move IMHO, I didn't create the function, it was created
> > >> as part of my upgrade process. May I suggest to put back the check?.
> > >
> > > That's the standard way of doing things in C functions (ie, rely on
> > > STRICT markings) and I see nothing wrong with it.
> > >
> > > If you were using an upgrade process that failed to incorporate
> > > version-to-version changes in the definitions of contrib functions,
> > > this is hardly going to be the only problem you encounter.
> >
> > I was under the impression that the standar procedure for upgrading
> > was to read the release notes searching for this kind of gotchas. I've
> > reviewed (again) the release notes for 8.1 and 8.2 and didn't find
> > anything related but maybe I'm not searching hard enough.
> >
> > If something is not going a work (or is going a work in a different
> > way) in some version after loading a shot form a previous one I think
> > it should be documented or some kind of backwards compatibility
> > mechanism should be provided.
> 
> That's a valid complaint and I take the blame.
> 
> The problem was that such "evolution" was not actually planned.
> So when I noticed the 8.2 commit, I did not think of the implications
> hard enough to realize the need for release note for it.
> 
> Tom, how about putting a note about that into next 8.2 minor
> release notes?  (8.3 too?)  Something like "You need to refresh
> pgcrypto functions, because since rel 8.2 the code depends
> on functions being tagged STRICT."

Seems 8.2.5 was released without this release notes mention, but we
haven't gotten any complaints about it so perhaps we don't need to add
anything.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: Select ... AS OF Savepoint
Next
From: ohp@pyrenet.fr
Date:
Subject: Re: should I worry?