Re: @(#) Mordred Labs advisory 0x0001: Buffer overflow in

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Justin Clift" <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, "Vince Vielhaber" <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: @(#) Mordred Labs advisory 0x0001: Buffer overflow in
Date: 2002-08-21 17:18:46
Message-ID: 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA48879CF@m0114.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> >> For that you would have to use "any", at the moment. This would give
> >> you the same amount of type safety you have with "opaque",
> ie, none.
>
> > I would have to use some pg_proc magic to make "any" appear there,
> > since the plan was to not make it visible at the sql level, no ?
>
> Huh? It'll be perfectly visible.

I did not mean visible, I meant useable, like in
create function xx(any) returns text ...;

If that is possible, what is the difference to opaque ?

Andreas

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-21 17:22:13 Re: @(#)Mordred Labs advisory 0x0003: Buffer overflow in PostgreSQL
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-21 17:13:27 Re: @(#)Mordred Labs advisory 0x0003: Buffer overflow in