Re: Unicode string literals versus the world

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unicode string literals versus the world
Date: 2009-04-11 17:06:45
Message-ID: 49E0CE25.4070703@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Tom Lane wrote:
>
> It gets worse though: I have seldom seen such a badly designed piece of
> syntax as the Unicode string syntax --- see
> http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/sql-syntax-lexical.html#SQL-SYNTAX-STRINGS-UESCAPE
>
> You scan the string, and then after that they tell you what the escape
> character is!? Not to mention the obvious ambiguity with & as an
> operator.
>
> If we let this go into 8.4, our previous rounds with security holes
> caused by careless string parsing will look like a day at the beach.
> No frontend that isn't fully cognizant of the Unicode string syntax is
> going to parse such things correctly --- it's going to be trivial for
> a bad guy to confuse a quoting mechanism as to what's an escape and what
> isn't.
>
> I think we need to give very serious consideration to ripping out that
> "feature".
>
>
>

+1

I don't recall a great deal of discussion about it, and it certainly
looks pretty horrible now you point it out.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-04-11 17:07:43 Re: Crash in gist insertion on pathological box data
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-04-11 17:00:23 Re: Patch for 8.5, transformationHook