On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 01:33:51PM +0300, Arthur Zakirov wrote: > I think your approach has a vulnerability too. I believe that a > non GUC_LIST_INPUT extension GUC which was used to create a function may > become GUC_LIST_INPUT variable. If I'm not mistaken nothing stops from > that. In this case values in proconfigislist won't be valide anymore.
I don't understand what you mean here. Are you referring to a custom GUC which was initially declared as not being a list, but became a list after a plugin upgrade with the same name? Isn't the author to blame in this case? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
