Re: Not quite a security hole in internal_in

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Normally we would consider a pg_proc change as requiring a catversion
> bump.  Since we are already past 8.4 beta we couldn't do that without
> forcing an initdb for beta testers.  What I'd like to do about this
> is change the proisstrict settings in pg_proc.h but not bump catversion.
> This will ensure the fix is in place and protecting future coding,
> although possibly not getting enforced in 8.4 production instances that
> were upgraded from beta (if there are any such).
>

why not bump it just at the final release. i don't think beta testers
are on production so they still have to initdb production servers
anyway

--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157