| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Unicode string literals versus the world |
| Date: | 2009-04-14 19:23:37 |
| Message-ID: | 200904142223.38042.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday 14 April 2009 21:48:12 Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > I think we can handle that and the cases Tom presents by erroring out
> > when the U& syntax is used with stdstr off.
>
> I think you're missing the point --- this is not about whether the
> syntax is unambiguous (it is already) but about whether a frontend that
> doesn't understand it 100% will be secure against subversion. I have no
> confidence in the latter assumption.
I think I am getting the point quite well. Do you have an example how this
can be subverted?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-14 19:27:29 | Re: Unicode string literals versus the world |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2009-04-14 19:11:46 | Re: psql with "Function Type" in \df |