On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:21:39AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > 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?
Yes exactly. Sorry for the unclear message. > Isn't the author to blame in this case? Maybe he is. It may be better to rename a variable if it became a list. I haven't strong opinion here though. I wanted to point the case where proconfigislist column won't work. -- Arthur Zakirov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com Russian Postgres Company
