From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jonathan Guthrie <jguthrie(at)brokersys(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #4027: backslash escaping not disabled in plpgsql |
Date: | 2008-12-16 03:34:41 |
Message-ID: | 200812160334.mBG3YfK13570@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > plpgsql does not consider standard_conforming_strings --- it still uses
> > backslash escaping in its function bodies regardless. Since the
> > language itself is not standardized, I see no particular reason that
> > standard_conforming_strings should govern it.
>
> I think plpgsql should behave either consistently with the rest of PostgreSQL
> or with Oracle, which it is copied from.
>
> > I believe the reason for
> > not changing it was that it seemed too likely to break existing
> > functions, with potentially nasty consequences if they chanced to be
> > security definers.
>
> Is this actually true or did we just forget it? :-)
Did we ever address this?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruno Pimenta | 2008-12-16 17:35:16 | BUG #4583: Db stop |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-15 18:52:02 | Re: BUG #4582: Renaming sequences and default value |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2008-12-16 03:36:13 | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-12-16 03:23:27 | Re: DROP ROLE dependency tracking ... |