public inbox for [email protected]help / color / mirror / Atom feed
[PATCH 2/6] 0001 review 3+ messages / 3 participants [nested] [flat]
* [PATCH 2/6] 0001 review @ 2021-02-15 15:26 Tomas Vondra <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Tomas Vondra @ 2021-02-15 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw) --- doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml | 2 +- src/backend/commands/copyfrom.c | 1 + src/backend/commands/copyto.c | 2 ++ 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml index 3c39c82f1a..c5048fefd4 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml @@ -6561,7 +6561,7 @@ SELECT pg_stat_get_backend_pid(s.backendid) AS pid, <para> The io target that the data is read from or written to: <literal>FILE</literal>, <literal>PROGRAM</literal>, - <literal>STDIO</literal> (for COPY FROM STDIN and COPY TO STDOUT), + <literal>STDIO</literal> (for <command>COPY FROM STDIN</command> and <command>COPY TO STDOUT</command>), or <literal>CALLBACK</literal> (used in the table synchronization background worker). </para></entry> diff --git a/src/backend/commands/copyfrom.c b/src/backend/commands/copyfrom.c index c3610eb67e..d98f447cf5 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/copyfrom.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/copyfrom.c @@ -1508,6 +1508,7 @@ BeginCopyFrom(ParseState *pstate, ReceiveCopyBinaryHeader(cstate); } + /* XXX this block seems weird */ { int64 io_target; switch (cstate->copy_src) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/copyto.c b/src/backend/commands/copyto.c index 42c4a828df..4b76bf5ef6 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/copyto.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/copyto.c @@ -772,6 +772,8 @@ BeginCopyTo(ParseState *pstate, /* initialize progress */ pgstat_progress_start_command(PROGRESS_COMMAND_COPY, cstate->rel ? RelationGetRelid(cstate->rel) : InvalidOid); + + /* XXX this too */ { const int progress_index[] = { PROGRESS_COPY_COMMAND, -- 2.26.2 --------------DA8D60BF026F7ACE69A9AEE5 Content-Type: text/x-patch; charset=UTF-8; name="v7-0003-Add-backlinks-to-progress-reporting-documentation.patch" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename*0="v7-0003-Add-backlinks-to-progress-reporting-documentation.pa"; filename*1="tch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Propagate sanity checks of ProcessUtility() to standard_ProcessUtility()? @ 2024-02-29 08:10 jian he <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: jian he @ 2024-02-29 08:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>; +Cc: Postgres hackers <[email protected]> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 3:21 PM Michael Paquier <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > It's been brought to me that an extension may finish by breaking the > assumptions ProcessUtility() relies on when calling > standard_ProcessUtility(), causing breakages when passing down data to > cascading utility hooks. > > Isn't the state of the arguments given something we should check not > only in the main entry point ProcessUtility() but also in > standard_ProcessUtility(), to prevent issues if an extension > incorrectly manipulates the arguments it needs to pass down to other > modules that use the utility hook, like using a NULL query string? > > See the attached for the idea. why not just shovel these to standard_ProcessUtility. so ProcessUtility will looking consistent with (in format) * ExecutorStart() * ExecutorRun() * ExecutorFinish() * ExecutorEnd() ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Propagate sanity checks of ProcessUtility() to standard_ProcessUtility()? @ 2024-03-01 02:05 Michael Paquier <[email protected]> parent: jian he <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Michael Paquier @ 2024-03-01 02:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: jian he <[email protected]>; +Cc: Postgres hackers <[email protected]> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 04:10:26PM +0800, jian he wrote: > why not just shovel these to standard_ProcessUtility. > so ProcessUtility will looking consistent with (in format) > * ExecutorStart() > * ExecutorRun() > * ExecutorFinish() > * ExecutorEnd() That's one of the points of the change: checking that only in standard_ProcessUtility() may not be sufficient for utility hooks that don't call standard_ProcessUtility(), so you'd stil want one in ProcessUtility(). -- Michael Attachments: [application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (833B, ../../[email protected]/2-signature.asc) download ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-03-01 02:05 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-02-15 15:26 [PATCH 2/6] 0001 review Tomas Vondra <[email protected]> 2024-02-29 08:10 Re: Propagate sanity checks of ProcessUtility() to standard_ProcessUtility()? jian he <[email protected]> 2024-03-01 02:05 ` Re: Propagate sanity checks of ProcessUtility() to standard_ProcessUtility()? Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox