> > > > It checks for a '\' followed by three digits, but does not attempt
to
> > > > enforce that the three digits actually produce a valid octal number.
> > Anyone
> > > > object to me fixing this?
> > > >
> >
> > Based on the thread this morning on patches, I was thinking we should
allow
> > '\\', '\0', or '\###' where ### is any valid octal. At least that's what
I
> > was going to have decode(bytea, 'escape') handle.
>
> Yep, it is way too open right now.
On further thought, I think I'll have to not allow '\0' and require '\000'
instead. Otherwise, how should the following be interpreted:
'\0123'
Is that '\0' followed by the literals '1', '2', and '3'? Or is it '\012'
followed by the literal '3'?
So, I'll go with '\\' or '\###' where ### is any valid octal, for both
byteain and decode(bytea, 'escape').
Comments?
-- Joe