Re: ISN extension - wrong volatility level for isn_weak() function

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  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