| 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 08:02:21 |
| Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA4961E56@m0114.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > 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.
>
> Do you plan on eliminating the COUNT() aggregate, then?
Ah, you want it for aggbasetype in pg_aggregate, I did not
see that.
How could we then disallow it's use in other context ? Seems
if there is no restriction, "any" will be exactly as prone to
"wrong use" as opaque was.
May be a plan could be to leave opaque, but throw a notice
when it is used in a create stmt, like:
NOTICE: the use of type OPAQUE should be avoided where possible
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-08-21 08:18:12 | 7.3 TODO |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-08-21 06:41:32 | Re: @(#)Mordred Labs advisory 0x0003: Buffer overflow in |