From: | Viktor Holmberg <v(at)viktorh(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <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: | 2025-03-14 16:08:36 |
Message-ID: | b698bb0e-766a-4255-a8c2-a1d14ef2a8f5@Spark |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Thanks, I did check that thread during my desperate attempts to figure this bug out.
In terms of the ergonomics of is_valid I think it’s actually quite nice. A GUC variable would be very nice - I kinda assumed the ISN module was create before GUC, hence the somewhat idiosyncratic is_weak(bool) session level setting.
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.
In terms of just fixing the immediate bug, I believe it’d just be to change isn.sql line 3423 and 2433:
CREATE FUNCTION isn_weak()
RETURNS boolean
AS 'MODULE_PATHNAME', 'weak_input_status'
LANGUAGE C
IMMUTABLE STRICT <— should be VOLATILE STRICT
PARALLEL RESTRICTED;
I believe even I could do this change, unless one of you pros would be open to doing it.
Am I right in understanding the next steps to do that would be to create a patch, and email it to pgsql-hackers? Or does that patch go here? Thanks
/Viktor
On 14 Mar 2025 at 15:14 +0000, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, wrote:
> Viktor Holmberg <v(at)viktorh(dot)net> writes:
> > I haven’t checked the source code, but yes the isn_weak feature has some footgun potential. As it doesn’t respect transactions, but rather sets a flag on session level, it’s easy for the “isn weakness” to leak out into a connection pool.
>
> Yeah, really that ought to be a GUC I should think. There isn't
> anything well-designed about it ...
>
> I found some prior discussion here:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/C12AE0A2A752416C79F3EE81%40teje
>
> but we don't seem to have pulled the trigger on changing anything.
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2025-03-14 16:16:06 | BUG #18851: Queries with xxx NOT IN (SELECT xxx FROM table) fail to run (or run very slowly) on v17 (v14 ok) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-03-14 15:13:49 | Re: ISN extension - wrong volatility level for isn_weak() function |