Re: bytea HISTORY updates

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Done, but didn't we use to allow \0 for NULL, while we now require \000?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks!

I thought I had the \0 to \000 change covered by:

 >>Add:
 >>
 >>Bug Fixes
 >>  bytea \### now requires valid three digit octal number

The issue before was that, not only was something like \0123 ambiguous
(is this \0 followed by the literal 123, or \012 followed by the literal
3?), but also that something like \129 could be input. See:

http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=1033902
and
http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=1033930

--Joe