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 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

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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