Re: Bad Data back Door
От | David E. Wheeler |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Bad Data back Door |
Дата | |
Msg-id | A1176DA3-B32B-4396-A820-78E7CF9C9C0F@justatheory.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Bad Data back Door (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Bad Data back Door
Re: Bad Data back Door |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Oct 5, 2012, at 6:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Probably not so much "assumed" as "nobody thought about it". In > e.g. plperl we expend the cycles to do encoding validity checking on > *every* string entering the system from Perl. I'm not sure why foreign > tables ought to get a pass on that, especially when you consider the > communication overhead that the encoding check would be amortized > against. Yes, that’s what I was thinking. > Now, having said that, I think it has to be the reponsibility of the FDW > to apply any required check ... which makes this a bug report against > oracle_fdw, not the core system. (FWIW, contrib/file_fdw depends on the > COPY code, which will check encoding.) I agree that this is a bug in oracle_fdw (well, potentially; ultimately, it’s Oracle that’s lying about the encoding of thosetext values). But I think that it would be much more useful overall -- not to mention more database-like -- for PostgreSQLto provide a way to enforce it. That is, to consider foreign tables to be an input like COPY or SQL, and to validatevalues before displaying them. Best, David
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: