Re: [HACKERS] fix for palloc() of user-supplied length

From: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] fix for palloc() of user-supplied length
Date: 2002-08-29 00:15:03
Message-ID: 1030580104.2059.1.camel@zeutrh73.zeut.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

> > > Anyone want to argue that we should keep the v0 protocol support any
> > > longer?
> >
> > Nope, exactly the same thought crossed my mind while I was reading
> > through the code...
>
> Feel free to rip it out.

Should probably be mentioned in the release notes.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2002-08-29 01:06:30 Re: VIRUS IN YOUR MAIL (W32/Klez.h@MM)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-08-28 23:53:50 Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-08-29 00:28:19 Re: create or replace rule/view (fwd)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-08-28 23:08:45 Concern about memory management with SRFs