From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: CVE-2017-7484-induced bugs, or, btree cmp functions are not leakproof? |
Date: | 2019-09-05 09:33:36 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-sc1SEN+6a9o6+XUQWUTMV073CPNgrkdjZz06cxqM5ooQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 2:48 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 2:12 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the patch, I was almost about to press the send button with
> my patch. But, this looks similar to my version.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 8:53 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Instead of falling back to the child, isn't it make more sense to
> check the permissions on the parent upto which we could translate (it
> may not be the root parent)?
>
/*
+ * For inheritance child relations, we also need to remember
+ * the root parent.
+ */
+ if (parent->rtekind == RTE_RELATION)
+ rel->inh_root_relid = parent->inh_root_relid > 0 ?
+ parent->inh_root_relid :
+ parent->relid;
+ else
+ /* Child relation of flattened UNION ALL subquery. */
+ rel->inh_root_relid = relid;
With the current changes, parent->inh_root_relid will always be > 0 so
(parent->inh_root_relid > 0) condition doesn't make sence. Right?
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Esteban Zimanyi | 2019-09-05 09:39:44 | Specifying attribute slot for storing/reading statistics |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2019-09-05 09:33:34 | Re: enhance SPI to support EXECUTE commands |