Re: User Defined Types in Java

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: User Defined Types in Java
Date: 2006-02-09 14:33:35
Message-ID: 773.1139495615@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> Actually, I'm think this whole automatic creation of a shell-type a bit
> silly anyway. Why not simply solve the problem directly like so:

> CREATE TYPE complex AS SHELL;

One of the unwritten consequences of the way that it works now is that
only superusers can "clutter the catalogs" with shell types. Not sure
how important that is, but I suspect that the system is not all that
robust against use of shell types where a completed type is expected.
You'd have to go over a lot of code with a fine-tooth comb before
putting this ability into the hands of ordinary users, else you'd be
creating loopholes for DOS attacks (or worse).

Having said that, I agree that this seems conceptually cleaner, though
I'm not sure we could ever get rid of the old way because of backward
compatibility issues.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-02-09 14:38:00 Re: pg_hba.conf alternative
Previous Message Thomas Hallgren 2006-02-09 14:33:32 Re: User Defined Types in Java