On Friday 29 May 2009 06:31:23 Bruce Momjian wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On Tuesday 05 May 2009 03:01:05 Tom Lane wrote: > > > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: > > > > On Tuesday 14 April 2009 21:34:51 Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > >> I think we can handle that and the cases Tom presents by erroring > > > >> out when the U& syntax is used with stdstr off. > > > > > > > > Proposed patch for that attached. > > > > > > I have not been able to think of any security hole in that proposal, > > > so this patch seems acceptable to me. I wonder though whether any > > > corresponding change is needed in psql's lexer, and if so how should > > > it react exactly to the rejection case. > > > > I had thought about that as well, but concluded that no additional change > > is necessary. > > > > Note that the *corresponding* change would be psql complaining "I don't > > like what you entered", versus the just-committed behavior that psql is > > indifferent and the server complains "I don't like what you sent me". > > > > In any case, the point of the change is to prevent confusion in client > > programs, so if we had to patch psql to make sense, then the change would > > have been pointless in the first place. > > I assume there is no TODO here.
No, it should be fine. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
