On 10 October 2011 21:28, Kohei KaiGai <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote: > 2011/10/10 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: >> It seems really ugly to me to suppose that we need to add a depth >> field to every single one of these node types. If you've missed one, >> then we have a security hole. If someone else adds another node type >> later that requires this field and doesn't add it, we have a security >> hole. And since all of these depth fields are going to make their way >> into stored rules, those security holes will require an initdb to fix. >> > Indeed, I have to admit this disadvantage from the perspective of code > maintenance, because it had also been a tough work for me to track > the depth field in this patch.
Would you consider putting the depth field directly into a generic superclass node, such as the "Expr" node? Perhaps that approach would be neater. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
