| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bogus attribute-number range checks in spi.c |
| Date: | 2008-10-15 15:13:24 |
| Message-ID: | 19627.1224083604@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> [ pokes around ... ] The difference between correct and incorrect
>> behavior here is that it is correct for SPI_getvalue and SPI_getbinval
>> to return NULL for added columns, but they are incorrect to also set
>> SPI_result to SPI_ERROR_NOATTRIBUTE. However, so far as I can see
>> none of the callers in our CVS bother to check SPI_result :-(.
> I do see several checks against SPI_ERROR_NOATTRIBUTE. I'm not sure what
> context they're in though. pl_exec.c:3606 and pl_exec.c:3940
Those all seem to be checking SPI_fnumber calls. The calls of
SPI_getvalue and SPI_getbinval just assume they cannot get a failure...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-15 15:29:15 | Re: Is autovacuum too noisy about orphan temp tables? |
| Previous Message | Decibel! | 2008-10-15 15:09:54 | Re: Column level triggers |