Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
> >> Perhaps something can be salvaged from the wreckage, but for now the
> >> right answer is just to make sure that this code is not compiled.
> > And to compile this code you supply _which_ configure option?
> It isn't a configure option --- you have to edit libpq++'s makefile
> to enable it. Or, in the case of the 6.5.* code, it got turned on
> anyway :-(.
Now that is just grand. It will be a happy day once all the various
configuration options, both runtime and compiletime, are brought under
the GrandReUnification umbrella that Peter E is weaving right now....
> Fortunately there is no security hole in either 6.5.*
> or current, since the code is too broken to actually produce any
> trace output, compiled or not.
That's what I thought you said. Which, in this case, a bug was a good
thing -- as if the code hadn't been buggy, we'd have had a security bug.
~:-]
> My point was mainly that I thought
> we should remove the code rather than fix it.
Who added the code in the first place? Would anyone _need_ it?
Otherwise, I agree -- _can_ it, if it's not too big of a change this
close to release (methinks not, but, you never know).
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
