On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > Justin Clift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > From the info still around, this looks to mean that the cash_words() > > problem was fixed, but the cash_out() problem was harder to fix. > > > Tom/Bruce, is that correct? > > The cash_out problem can't really be fixed until we do something about > subdividing type "opaque" into multiple pseudo-types with more carefully > defined meanings. cash_out is declared cash_out(opaque) which does not > really mean that it accepts any input type ... but one of the several > meanings of "opaque" is "accepts any type", so the parser doesn't reject > cash_out(2). > > I'd like to see something done about this fairly soon, but it's not > happening for 7.3 ...
Does anyone have an idea about what other functions are affected by this? As a stop gap measure to remove the *known* DoS issue how about changing the pg_proc entry to restrict input types, i.e. not cash_out(opaque)? cash_words is already listed as only taking the money type is cash_out really that different? On a related topic cash_out() is listed in pg_proc as returning an int4 but doesn't the code clearly show that is incorrect? -- Nigel J. Andrews Director --- Logictree Systems Limited Computer Consultants ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
