Re: SQL-standard function body
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SQL-standard function body |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9277ef6a-bfa8-9c06-8e91-16c2892120cc@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SQL-standard function body (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: SQL-standard function body
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 31.03.21 12:12, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 11:28:55PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 8:49 AM Peter Eisentraut >> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> >>> Right. Here is a new patch with that fix added and a small conflict >>> resolved. >> >> Great. >> >> It seems print_function_sqlbody() is not protected to avoid receiving >> a function that hasn't a standard sql body in >> src/backend/utils/adt/ruleutils.c:3292, but instead it has an assert >> that gets hit with something like this: >> >> CREATE FUNCTION foo() RETURNS int LANGUAGE SQL AS $$ SELECT 1 $$; >> SELECT pg_get_function_sqlbody('foo'::regproc); fixed > It would also be good to add a regression test checking that we can't define a > function with both a prosrc and a prosqlbody. done > @@ -76,6 +77,7 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName, > Oid languageValidator, > const char *prosrc, > const char *probin, > + Node *prosqlbody, > char prokind, > bool security_definer, > bool isLeakProof, > @@ -119,8 +121,6 @@ ProcedureCreate(const char *procedureName, > /* > * sanity checks > */ > - Assert(PointerIsValid(prosrc)); > - > parameterCount = parameterTypes->dim1; > > > Shouldn't we still assert that we either have a valid procsrc or valid > prosqlbody? fixed New patch attached.
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: