On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:21:39AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 01:33:51PM +0300, Arthur Zakirov wrote:
> > I think your approach has a vulnerability too. I believe that a
> > non GUC_LIST_INPUT extension GUC which was used to create a function may
> > become GUC_LIST_INPUT variable. If I'm not mistaken nothing stops from
> > that. In this case values in proconfigislist won't be valide anymore.
>
> I don't understand what you mean here. Are you referring to a custom
> GUC which was initially declared as not being a list, but became a list
> after a plugin upgrade with the same name?
Yes exactly. Sorry for the unclear message.
> Isn't the author to blame in this case?
Maybe he is. It may be better to rename a variable if it became a list.
I haven't strong opinion here though. I wanted to point the case where
proconfigislist column won't work.
--
Arthur Zakirov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
