Re: byteain bug(?)
От | Joe Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: byteain bug(?) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 02a501c13761$3edada10$0705a8c0@jecw2k1 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: byteain bug(?) (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: byteain bug(?)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > > > 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: