You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Fix failure to validate the result of select_common_type().
Although select_common_type() has a failure-return convention, an
apparent successful return just provides a type OID that *might* work
as a common supertype; we've not validated that the required casts
actually exist. In the mainstream use-cases that doesn't matter,
because we'll proceed to invoke coerce_to_common_type() on each input,
which will fail appropriately if the proposed common type doesn't
actually work. However, a few callers didn't read the (nonexistent)
fine print, and thought that if they got back a nonzero OID then the
coercions were sure to work.
This affects in particular the recently-added "anycompatible"
polymorphic types; we might think that a function/operator using
such types matches cases it really doesn't. A likely end result
of that is unexpected "ambiguous operator" errors, as for example
in bug #17387 from James Inform. Another, much older, case is that
the parser might try to transform an "x IN (list)" construct to
a ScalarArrayOpExpr even when the list elements don't actually have
a common supertype.
It doesn't seem desirable to add more checking to select_common_type
itself, as that'd just slow down the mainstream use-cases. Instead,
write a separate function verify_common_type that performs the
missing checks, and add a call to that where necessary. Likewise add
verify_common_type_from_oids to go with select_common_type_from_oids.
Back-patch to v13 where the "anycompatible" types came in. (The
symptom complained of in bug #17387 doesn't appear till v14, but
that's just because we didn't get around to converting || to use
anycompatible till then.) In principle the "x IN (list)" fix could
go back all the way, but I'm not currently convinced that it makes
much difference in real-world cases, so I won't bother for now.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17387-5dfe54b988444963@postgresql.org
0 commit comments