| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: User Defined Types in Java |
| Date: | 2006-02-09 14:33:35 |
| Message-ID: | 773.1139495615@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> Actually, I'm think this whole automatic creation of a shell-type a bit
> silly anyway. Why not simply solve the problem directly like so:
> CREATE TYPE complex AS SHELL;
One of the unwritten consequences of the way that it works now is that
only superusers can "clutter the catalogs" with shell types. Not sure
how important that is, but I suspect that the system is not all that
robust against use of shell types where a completed type is expected.
You'd have to go over a lot of code with a fine-tooth comb before
putting this ability into the hands of ordinary users, else you'd be
creating loopholes for DOS attacks (or worse).
Having said that, I agree that this seems conceptually cleaner, though
I'm not sure we could ever get rid of the old way because of backward
compatibility issues.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-02-09 14:38:00 | Re: pg_hba.conf alternative |
| Previous Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2006-02-09 14:33:32 | Re: User Defined Types in Java |