These seem more like privilege escalation, you have access through a database account and use that to gain full access to the whole server. So an issue for multi-tenant databases mostly.

According to the article, Postgres has an internal Datum that might be a pointer or not a pointer. Okay, this is already a bit risky.

Datum comes along with a small-integer type id. That id is stored separately, presumably for efficiency? Maybe you have lots of Datums and one id and you do this for efficiency. Okay, as long as there is a clear story for why the id stays correctly bound to the datum. The “internal” thing where a bogus AST will cause type confusion makes me think the story here isn’t great.

But then I learn that the type id is something that the code looks up in a system table in the database. I’m speechless. This is the kind of thing that can’t be represented in any safe language because the indication of whether a value is a pointer isn’t even in application memory.

Eww. Maybe the AIs can exhaustively enumerate every code path that might get it wrong and rule them all out in a particular release. Maybe there’s even a Lean program that can verify it. But this is still the kind of design that is wrong by construction and is only okay if every single detail avoids the giant foot-cannon.