| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: @(#) Mordred Labs advisory 0x0001: Buffer overflow in |
| Date: | 2002-08-20 20:50:43 |
| Message-ID: | 1029876644.99470.98.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 16:46, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
> > >>> Hard to say what is good for those names imho, don't like
> > >>> "anytype" :-(
> > >>
> > >> How about "any"? It's a reserved word per SQL99, I think.
> >
> > > I would actually stick to opaque in that case, already used in other db's.
> >
> > I want to change the name because (a) we are changing the semantics,
> > (b) we can't throw notices for opaque if we keep it as a valid choice.
>
> 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.
Erm.. count(*) <- * is literally anything.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vince Vielhaber | 2002-08-20 20:50:45 | Re: @(#)Mordred Labs advisory 0x0003: Buffer overflow in |
| Previous Message | Vince Vielhaber | 2002-08-20 20:48:03 | @(#)Mordred Labs advisory 0x0004: Multiple buffer overflows in PostgreSQL. (fwd) |