Re: quoting psql varible as identifier

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: quoting psql varible as identifier
Date: 2010-01-15 05:47:52
Message-ID: 162867791001142147i5518d987i640d8ad6481007cd@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2010/1/15 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> No longer applies, please rebase.
>>
>> fixed, sorry
>

my idea was:

* string
* escape_string
* escape_ident
* bytea
* escape_bytea

But I am not strong in it. Maybe this part of doc needs more love -
long time there are doc to deprecated functions. It could be moved.

Pavel
> Hmm.  I think that pqEscapeIdentConn should be in a separate section
> of the documentation, entitled "Escaping Identifiers for Inclusion in
> SQL Commands".  Or else we should merge the existing sections
> "Escaping Strings for Inclusion in SQL Commands" and "Escaping Binary
> Strings for Inclusion in SQL Commands" and then put this in there too.
>
> On a perhaps-related note, does anyone understand why "Escaping
> Strings for Inclusion in SQL Commands" is formatted in a way that is
> needlessly inconsistent with the preceding and following sections?  I
> was surprised by the magnitude of the doc diff hunk in this patch, but
> when I looked at it it seems to read more clearly with these changes.
>
> I have yet to fully review the code but on a quick glance it looks reasonable.
>
> ...Robert
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alex Hunsaker 2010-01-15 05:52:11 Re: attoptions
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-01-15 05:45:54 Re: PG_MODULE_MAGIC checks and pg_migrator