| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | object_classes array is broken, again |
| Date: | 2015-06-24 19:11:22 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa6SgDaxW_n_7SEhwBAc=mniYga+obUj5fmw4rU9_mLvA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The transforms patch seems to have forgotten to add
TransformRelationId to object_classes[], much like the RLS patch
forgot to add PolicyRelationId in the same place.
Fixing this is easy, but ISTM that we need to insert some sort of a
guard to prevent people from continuing to forget this, because it's
apparently quite easy to do. Perhaps add_object_address should
Assert(OidIsValid(object_classes[oclass])), plus a (static?) assert
someplace checking that OidIsValid(object_classes[MAX_OCLASS - 1])?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-06-24 19:13:19 | Re: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2015-06-24 19:07:35 | Re: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes? |