Re: Is this a bug, possible security hole, or wrong
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Is this a bug, possible security hole, or wrong |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20742.1023981294@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Is this a bug, possible security hole, or wrong (Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com> writes: > I apologize. The pg_stat_activity view is a good example of using views > atop functions to provide security. Its not exactly obvious, but it can > be done. And with the SRFs coming, I suppose fixing views is a pretty > low priority... I've applied the attached patch, which changes the behavior in your example case. However, in general I do not think it's possible or desirable to guarantee anything about order of evaluation of WHERE clauses. regards, tom lane *** src/backend/optimizer/plan/planner.c.orig Sat May 18 14:49:41 2002 --- src/backend/optimizer/plan/planner.c Thu Jun 13 11:01:09 2002 *************** *** 656,662 **** if (childlen <= 1 || (childlen + myothers) <= geqo_rels / 2) { newlist = nconc(newlist, subf->fromlist); ! f->quals = make_and_qual(f->quals, subf->quals); } else newlist = lappend(newlist, child); --- 656,662 ---- if (childlen <= 1 || (childlen + myothers) <= geqo_rels / 2) { newlist = nconc(newlist, subf->fromlist); ! f->quals = make_and_qual(subf->quals, f->quals); } else newlist = lappend(newlist, child);
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: