Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax

On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:49:45AM +0200, Karol Trzcionka wrote:
> Next version:
> - cleanup
> - regression test
> - fix issue reported by johto (invalid values in parallel transactions)
> I would like more feedback and comments about the patch, as some parts
> may be too hacky.
> In particular, is it a problem that I update a pointer to planSlot? In
> my patch, it points to tuple after all updates done between planner and
> executor (in fact it is not planSlot right now). I don't know whether
> the tuple could be deleted in the intervening time and if the pointer
> doesn't point to "unreserved" memory (I mean - memory which may be
> overwritten by something meanwhile).

Thanks for the updated patch!

Anybody care to look this over for vulnerabilities as described above?

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate