On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 3:21 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> 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()
