Re: @(#) Mordred Labs advisory 0x0001: Buffer overflow in - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD
Subject Re: @(#) Mordred Labs advisory 0x0001: Buffer overflow in
Date
Msg-id 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA4961E56@m0114.s-mxs.net
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: @(#) Mordred Labs advisory 0x0001: Buffer overflow in  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> > Hmm, "any" would sound like it is the same as opaque. Would "any" really be
> > all allowed types ? I think we would want to eliminate that
> altogether.
>
> Do you plan on eliminating the COUNT() aggregate, then?

Ah, you want it for aggbasetype in pg_aggregate, I did not
see that.

How could we then disallow it's use in other context ? Seems
if there is no restriction, "any" will be exactly as prone to
"wrong use" as opaque was.

May be a plan could be to leave opaque, but throw a notice
when it is used in a create stmt, like:
NOTICE: the use of type OPAQUE should be avoided where possible

Andreas


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
Subject: Re: @(#)Mordred Labs advisory 0x0003: Buffer overflow in
Next
From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne"
Date:
Subject: 7.3 TODO