pgsql: Check to ensure the number of primary key fields supplied does

Started by Nonameover 16 years ago3 messagescomitters
Jump to latest
#1Noname
joe@postgresql.org

Log Message:
-----------
Check to ensure the number of primary key fields supplied does not
exceed the total number of non-dropped source table fields for
dblink_build_sql_*(). Addresses bug report from Rushabh Lathia.

Backpatch all the way to the 7.3 branch.

Tags:
----
REL7_3_STABLE

Modified Files:
--------------
pgsql/contrib/dblink:
dblink.c (r1.15.2.6 -> r1.15.2.7)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/contrib/dblink/dblink.c?r1=1.15.2.6&r2=1.15.2.7)
pgsql/contrib/dblink/expected:
dblink.out (r1.6.2.1 -> r1.6.2.2)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/contrib/dblink/expected/dblink.out?r1=1.6.2.1&r2=1.6.2.2)
pgsql/contrib/dblink/sql:
dblink.sql (r1.6.2.1 -> r1.6.2.2)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/contrib/dblink/sql/dblink.sql?r1=1.6.2.1&r2=1.6.2.2)

#2Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Noname (#1)
Re: pgsql: Check to ensure the number of primary key fields supplied does

joe@postgresql.org (Joe Conway) writes:

Check to ensure the number of primary key fields supplied does not
exceed the total number of non-dropped source table fields for
dblink_build_sql_*(). Addresses bug report from Rushabh Lathia.

Backpatch all the way to the 7.3 branch.

Just for the record, we stopped maintaining 7.3 quite some time ago;
there's not really any point in backpatching that branch. No harm
done of course, but I think you wasted your time.

regards, tom lane

#3Joe Conway
mail@joeconway.com
In reply to: Tom Lane (#2)
Re: pgsql: Check to ensure the number of primary key fields supplied does

On 02/03/2010 04:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

joe@postgresql.org (Joe Conway) writes:

Check to ensure the number of primary key fields supplied does not
exceed the total number of non-dropped source table fields for
dblink_build_sql_*(). Addresses bug report from Rushabh Lathia.

Backpatch all the way to the 7.3 branch.

Just for the record, we stopped maintaining 7.3 quite some time ago;
there's not really any point in backpatching that branch. No harm
done of course, but I think you wasted your time.

Thanks for the reminder. But it wasn't much extra work to do one more
patch after doing the first seven ;-)

Joe