| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The list of transform objects that a function should use is specified
in CREATE FUNCTION's TRANSFORM clause, and then represented indirectly
in pg_proc.protrftypes. However, ProcedureCreate completely ignored
that for purposes of constructing pg_depend entries, and instead made
the function depend on any transforms that exist for its parameter or
return data types. This is bad in both directions: the function could
be made dependent on a transform it does not actually use, or it
could try to use a transform that's since been dropped. (The latter
scenario would require use of a transform that's not for any of the
parameter or return types, but that seems legit for cases where the
function performs SQL operations internally.)
To fix, pass in the list of transform objects that CreateFunction
identified, and build pg_depend entries from that not from the
parameter/return types. This results in changes in the expected
test outputs in contrib/bool_plperl, which I guess are due to
different ordering of pg_depend entries -- that test case is
surely not exercising either of the problem scenarios.
This fix is not back-patchable as-is: changing the signature of
ProcedureCreate seems too risky in stable branches. We could
do something like making ProcedureCreate a wrapper around
ProcedureCreateExt or so. However, I'm more inclined to do
nothing in the back branches. We had no field complaints up to
now, so the hazards don't seem to be a big issue in practice.
And we couldn't do anything about existing pg_depend entries,
so a back-patched fix would result in a mishmash of dependencies
created according to different rules. That cure could be worse
than the disease, perhaps.
I bumped catversion just to lay down a marker that the expected
contents of pg_depend are a bit different than before.
Reported-by: Chapman Flack <jcflack@acm.org>
Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3112950.1743984111@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
