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
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 |