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
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 |