Re: pgbench failed when -f option contains a char '@'

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: "Wang, Shenhao" <wangsh(dot)fnst(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgbench failed when -f option contains a char '@'
Date: 2020-12-18 15:10:42
Message-ID: 157895.1608304242@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
> I think we should just leave this as it is. The user can simply rename
> the file.

Yeah. The assumption when we defined the script-weight syntax was that
there's no particular reason to use "@" in a script file name, and
I don't see why that's a bad assumption.

> Or maybe one change would be worthwhile here: First check if the part
> after the @ contains only digits. If doesn't, then assume it's part of
> the filename rather than a weight. That would fix this for cases like
> "foo(at)1(dot)sql", although not for "foo(at)1".

I do not like introducing ambiguity of that sort. Not being entirely
clear on which script file is going to be read seems like a recipe
for security issues.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2020-12-18 15:44:46 Re: Proposed patch for key managment
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2020-12-18 13:18:53 Re: Proposed patch for key managment