From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: balazs@obiserver.hu, pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org,
        pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?
In-reply-to: <3cece400-af56-7145-2e65-f044de1b0b68@2ndQuadrant.com>
References: <20170922185904.1448.16585@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <15165.1506116768@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <3cece400-af56-7145-2e65-f044de1b0b68@2ndQuadrant.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Fri, 22 Sep 2017 21:27:29 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <28967.1506136792.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 23:19:52 -0400
Message-ID: <28968.1506136792@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-bugs-owner@postgresql.org

Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 09/22/2017 05:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not sure if that qualifies as a stop-ship problem, but it ain't
>> good, for sure.  We need to look at whether we should revert 15bc038f9
>> or somehow revise its rules.

> I wonder if we wouldn't be better
> doing this more directly, keeping a per-transaction hash of unsafe enum
> values (which will almost always be empty). It might even speed up the
> check.

Yeah, I was considering the same thing over dinner, though I'd phrase
it oppositely: keep a list of enum type OIDs created in the current
transaction, so that we could whitelist them.  This could maybe become
a problem if someone created a zillion enums in one xact, though.

The immediate question is do we care to design/implement such a thing
post-RC1.  I'd have to vote "no".  I think the most prudent thing to
do is revert 15bc038f9 and then have another go at it during the v11
cycle.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs