MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <19508-e5f188183279219b@postgresql.org>
 <CAHGQGwGaC8RNeVP3A4_R1OcHJ-DrXgr2HH2UEYrt-Ueu516Gng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9k0Pkr+KKSx4UVmrLp-ZgF1BtwoVCOHOL99MeXr81D8JnX1w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAE9k0Pkr+KKSx4UVmrLp-ZgF1BtwoVCOHOL99MeXr81D8JnX1w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2026 00:38:15 +0900
Message-ID: 
 <CAHGQGwGBNURw4mh71_oG-fR-HCAW2-aFc05RSkmPywV97K+V3A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: BUG #19508: pg_buffercache_pages() crashes the backend with an
 incompatible caller-supplied record definition
To: Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>
Cc: n.kalinin@postgrespro.ru, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHGQGwGBNURw4mh71_oG-fR-HCAW2-aFc05RSkmPywV97K%2BV3A%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 12:29=E2=80=AFAM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.=
com> wrote:
> pg_buffercache_pages uses RETURNS SETOF RECORD whereas other
> extensions like pgstattuple define explicit IN/OUT parameters at the
> SQL level. Is there a specific reason this pattern was kept, or is it
> simply a legacy design that hasn't been modernized? Had we followed
> the IN/OUT parameter style, this sort of issue could have been
> avoided, no?

Probably yes. But if we do that, we would likely need to bump pg_buffercach=
e
version. I'm not sure that's worthwhile just for this change.

Regards,

--=20
Fujii Masao