From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements
In-reply-to: <20210617180055.txf7g6tkelk2f2x4@nol>
References: <931771.1623893989@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <974666.1623943810@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1026052.1623949409@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20210617180055.txf7g6tkelk2f2x4@nol>
Comments: In-reply-to Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 18 Jun 2021 02:00:55 +0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1100702.1624026260.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 10:24:20 -0400
Message-ID: <1100703.1624026260@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1100703.1624026260%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 01:03:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> + *	readOnlyTree: treat pstmt's node tree as read-only

> Maybe it's because I'm not a native english speaker, or because it's qui=
te
> late here, but I don't find "treat as read-only" really clear.  I don't =
have a
> concise better wording to suggest.

Maybe "if true, pstmt's node tree must not be modified" ?

>> Still thinking about which way to fix it in the back branches.

> I'm +0.5 for a narrow fix, due to the possibility of unspotted similar p=
roblem
> vs possibility of performance regression ratio.

After sleeping on it another day, I'm inclined to think the same.  The
key attraction of a centralized fix is that it prevents the possibility
of new bugs of the same ilk in newly-added features.  Given how long
these CREATE/ALTER DOMAIN bugs escaped detection, it's hard to have
full confidence that there are no others in the back branches --- but
they must be in really lightly-used features.

			regards, tom lane