Re: ISN extension - wrong volatility level for isn_weak() function

From: Viktor Holmberg <v(at)viktorh(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: daniel(at)yesql(dot)se, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ISN extension - wrong volatility level for isn_weak() function
Date: 2025-03-15 15:32:39
Message-ID: 742add6c-02ac-42e4-97a3-f2ebd1520d64@Spark
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On 14 Mar 2025 at 16:18 +0000, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, wrote:
> Viktor Holmberg <v(at)viktorh(dot)net> writes:
> > However, cleaning things up to use GUC seems like it’d be bigger task, and also would only be an extra thing, as isn_weak function would need to stay in for backwards compatibility I assume.
>
> Wouldn't be a big deal --- yes, accept_weak_input would need a bit of
> modification, but it's not much. The main reason I suggested it was
> that a GUC would be subject to RESET ALL and so it'd fix the pooler
> hazard you pointed out.
You’re right it’d definitely be much nicer. I’ll give it a go.
>
> > In terms of just fixing the immediate bug, I believe it’d just be to change isn.sql line 3423 and 2433:
>
> No, we'd need to create an update script that uses ALTER FUNCTION.
> Extension scripts are basically frozen once shipped.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I’ve attached a patch that fixes the volatility. I thought it best to at least get some feedback on that before I try to dust off my C knowledge and try to fix the GUC stuff.
>
> regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
v10-0002-Allow-Generic-Type-Subscripting-to-Accept-Dot-No.patch application/octet-stream 10.3 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2025-03-15 16:22:03 Re: ISN extension - wrong volatility level for isn_weak() function
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2025-03-14 22:10:27 Re: BUG #18845: DEREF_OF_NULL.RET guc_malloc possibly returns NULL