Re: Not quite a security hole in internal_in - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: Not quite a security hole in internal_in
Date
Msg-id 4A2E9909.5030700@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Not quite a security hole in internal_in  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Not quite a security hole in internal_in  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Normally we would consider a pg_proc change as requiring a catversion
> bump.  Since we are already past 8.4 beta we couldn't do that without
> forcing an initdb for beta testers.  What I'd like to do about this
> is change the proisstrict settings in pg_proc.h but not bump catversion.
> This will ensure the fix is in place and protecting future coding,
> although possibly not getting enforced in 8.4 production instances that
> were upgraded from beta (if there are any such).
>
>
>   

How common is this scenario? It's certainly not something I ever do.

cheers

andrew


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Multicolumn index corruption on 8.4 beta 2
Next
From: Florian Weimer
Date:
Subject: Re: Multicolumn index corruption on 8.4 beta 2