Re: ON CONFLICT issues around whole row vars,

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ON CONFLICT issues around whole row vars,
Date: 2015-10-02 00:41:25
Message-ID: CAM3SWZR_cJgi=+nL3BjeDG+x8jBsLu=9iwkcDa1vLQQhj1fPaA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I'm can't see how the current code can do anything sensible at all. What
> do you think is going to be the effect of an excluded row that doesn't
> meet security quals? Even if it worked in the sense that the correct
> data were accessed and every - which I doubt is completely the case as
> things stands given there's no actual scan node and stuff - you'd still
> have EXCLUDED.* being used in the projection for the new version of the
> tuple.
>
> As far as I can see the only correct thing you could do in that
> situation is error out.

I agree. I wasn't defending the current code (although that might have
been made unclear by the "technically wasn't a bug" remark).

Note that I'm not telling you what I think needs to happen. I'm just
explaining my understanding of what has happened.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2015-10-02 00:50:02 Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual
Previous Message Andres Freund 2015-10-02 00:12:32 Re: ON CONFLICT issues around whole row vars,