Re: [HACKERS] object_classes array is broken, again

2015-07-20 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Any opinions on this idea? I don't like it all that much, but it's plenty effective. Alvaro Herrera wrote: The problem is that there aren't enough callers of add_object_address: there are many indexes of that array that aren't ever accessed and so it's not obvious when the array is broken.

Re: [HACKERS] object_classes array is broken, again

2015-07-18 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Robert Haas wrote: The transforms patch seems to have forgotten to add TransformRelationId to object_classes[], much like the RLS patch forgot to add PolicyRelationId in the same place. Fixing this is easy, but ISTM that we need to insert some sort of a guard to prevent people from

Re: [HACKERS] object_classes array is broken, again

2015-06-26 Thread Jim Nasby
On 6/24/15 2:11 PM, Robert Haas wrote: Fixing this is easy, but ISTM that we need to insert some sort of a guard to prevent people from continuing to forget this, because it's apparently quite easy to do. Perhaps add_object_address should Assert(OidIsValid(object_classes[oclass])), plus a