Re: Not quite a security hole in internal_in

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

> 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.

I think a serious issue like this warrants a bump. It seems like you are
saying that at any other time in the release cycle this would be
an automatic bump, so let's keep a consistent policy and bump it.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
End Point Corporation
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200906091241
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAkoukLkACgkQvJuQZxSWSshalACg8UfcyvTF2TxazvwwzxDNDIuM
dpEAoJYVaS8czeR79dyJOTAoXLghSgKS
=21ax
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----