Re: Yet another fast GiST build
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Yet another fast GiST build |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 450f9c3b-4d8a-0bdb-9b5d-dd3f72c2c102@iki.fi обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Yet another fast GiST build (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 18/01/2021 01:10, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 3:04 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: >> I personally agree with you - it's not like there aren't other ways >> for superusers to crash the server (most of which seem very similar to >> this gist_page_items() issue, in fact). I just think that it's worth >> being clear about that being a trade-off that we've accepted. > > Can we rename gist_page_items_bytea() to gist_page_items(), and at the > same time rename the current gist_page_items() -- perhaps call it > gist_page_items_output()? > > That way we could add a bt_page_items_output() function later, while > leaving everything consistent (actually not quite, since > bt_page_items() outputs text instead of bytea -- but that seems worth > fixing too). This also has the merit of making the unsafe "output" > variant into the special case. bt_page_items() and bt_page_items_bytea() exist already. And brin_page_items() also calls the output functions (there's no bytea version of that). Perhaps it would've been better to make the bytea-variants the default, but I'm afraid that ship has already sailed. We're not terribly consistent; heap_page_items(), hash_page_items() and gin_page_items() don't attempt to call the output functions. Then again, I don't think we need to worry much about backwards compatibility in pageinspect, so I guess we could rename them all. It doesn't bother me enough to make me do it, but I won't object if you want to. - Heikki
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: