On 01/10/2026 01:14, Alex Liapychev wrote: > > My personal view is that adding this functionality carries more risks > than leaving it out. Although the code is relatively small and appears > to work correctly, I would not merge it into the codebase.
You mean the multiple tables scenario or the whole patch? > An example of how this functionality could be used maliciously: > > * A workflow creates a new table from several template tables in > response to an event. Can you elaborate more on this scenario? I'm afraid I didn't get your point here. Thanks! > * An adversarial user with sufficient database access adds one comment > to each of two template tables. The combined size of these comments > exceeds |MaxAllocSize|, causing the automation to fail unexpectedly. An "adversarial" user with enough privileges can do many things break it, like renaming a column causing a conflict. I see this large comment scenario as purely theoretical -- at least I fail to see any practical use case ever exhausting this limit. Thanks! Best, Jim
