Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Thread: pgsql: Check to ensure the number of primary key fields supplied does

pgsql: Check to ensure the number of primary key fields supplied does

From
joe@postgresql.org (Joe Conway)
Date:
Log Message:
-----------
Check to ensure the number of primary key fields supplied does not
exceed the total number of non-dropped source table fields for
dblink_build_sql_*(). Addresses bug report from Rushabh Lathia.

Backpatch all the way to the 7.3 branch.

Tags:
----
REL7_3_STABLE

Modified Files:
--------------
    pgsql/contrib/dblink:
        dblink.c (r1.15.2.6 -> r1.15.2.7)
        (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/contrib/dblink/dblink.c?r1=1.15.2.6&r2=1.15.2.7)
    pgsql/contrib/dblink/expected:
        dblink.out (r1.6.2.1 -> r1.6.2.2)
        (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/contrib/dblink/expected/dblink.out?r1=1.6.2.1&r2=1.6.2.2)
    pgsql/contrib/dblink/sql:
        dblink.sql (r1.6.2.1 -> r1.6.2.2)
        (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/contrib/dblink/sql/dblink.sql?r1=1.6.2.1&r2=1.6.2.2)

Re: pgsql: Check to ensure the number of primary key fields supplied does

From
Tom Lane
Date:
joe@postgresql.org (Joe Conway) writes:
> Check to ensure the number of primary key fields supplied does not
> exceed the total number of non-dropped source table fields for
> dblink_build_sql_*(). Addresses bug report from Rushabh Lathia.

> Backpatch all the way to the 7.3 branch.

Just for the record, we stopped maintaining 7.3 quite some time ago;
there's not really any point in backpatching that branch.  No harm
done of course, but I think you wasted your time.

            regards, tom lane

Re: pgsql: Check to ensure the number of primary key fields supplied does

From
Joe Conway
Date:
On 02/03/2010 04:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> joe@postgresql.org (Joe Conway) writes:
>> Check to ensure the number of primary key fields supplied does not
>> exceed the total number of non-dropped source table fields for
>> dblink_build_sql_*(). Addresses bug report from Rushabh Lathia.
>
>> Backpatch all the way to the 7.3 branch.
>
> Just for the record, we stopped maintaining 7.3 quite some time ago;
> there's not really any point in backpatching that branch.  No harm
> done of course, but I think you wasted your time.

Thanks for the reminder. But it wasn't much extra work to do one more
patch after doing the first seven ;-)

Joe
Attachment