| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #13960: plpython fails with certain function names |
| Date: | 2016-02-17 01:49:38 |
| Message-ID: | 25529.1455673778@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> writes:
> On 2/14/16 7:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, that's what I was thinking about. But yes, if we append the OID
>> anyway then we might as well just strip all non-alphanumeric chars
>> from the name. Safe and you still get some debuggability.
> Attached. I opted not to modify the name in-place. If it's safe to
> modify in place, might want to just replace invalid characters with '_'
> instead of making a copy.
I like the idea of replacing invalid characters with '_'. It's definitely
not safe to scribble on the pg_proc tuple, but we could get the same
result with a few wasted cycles by rescanning the procName string after
building it, as per attached.
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| plpython_name_2.patch | text/x-diff | 3.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-02-17 01:53:22 | Re: BUG #13960: plpython fails with certain function names |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-02-17 01:23:38 | Re: BUG #13960: plpython fails with certain function names |