All, * Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote: > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > > On 2015-07-09 01:28:28 -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > > > > - Keep the OID check, shouldn't hurt to have it > > > > > > What benefit is left? > > > > A bit of defense in depth. We execute user defined code in COPY > > (e.g. BEFORE triggers). That user defined code could very well replace > > the relation. Now I think right now that'd happen late enough, so the > > second lookup already happened. But a bit more robust defense against > > that sounds good to me. > > Attached patch keeps the relation locked, fully qualifies it when > building up the query, and uses list_member_oid() to check that the > relation's OID ends up in the resulting relationOids list (to address > Noah's point that the planner doesn't guarantee the ordering; I doubt > that list will ever be more than a few entries long). > > Also removes the misguided Assert(). > > Barring objections, I'll commit this (and backpatch to 9.5) tomorrow.
Apologies for not pushing this before I left on vacation. I've done so
now.
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
