Re: SELECT of pseudo hex value gives unexpected result

Am 29.01.2019 um 17:39 schrieb Tom Lane: > "Gunnar \"Nick\" Bluth" writes: >> Tried >> SELECT 0x5e73266725; [...] > SELECT 0 AS x5e73266725; > > and that's the result you got. Well, yeah, _that_ was pretty obvious. I just didn't expect ot to happen... > I think that the SQL standard considers

Re: SELECT of pseudo hex value gives unexpected result

Gunnar "Nick" Bluth wrote: > Tried > SELECT 0x5e73266725; > > and received: > -[ RECORD 1 ]-- > x5e73266725 | 0 > > That was not what I expected... is this expected/documented behaviour? Looks like you don't need a space between a number literal and the column alias. I don't see any problem wit

Re: SELECT of pseudo hex value gives unexpected result

"Gunnar \"Nick\" Bluth" writes: > Tried > SELECT 0x5e73266725; > and received: > -[ RECORD 1 ]-- > x5e73266725 | 0 > That was not what I expected... is this expected/documented behaviour? Well, there are no hex literals in (PG's notion of) SQL, so that isn't a valid token. But it's the concate

SELECT of pseudo hex value gives unexpected result

Hi, I found this in an SQL-injection attempt today: union select 0x5e73266725,0x5e73266725[,...],0x5e73266725; Tried SELECT 0x5e73266725; and received: -[ RECORD 1 ]-- x5e73266725 | 0 That was not what I expected... is this expected/documented behaviour? Thx in advance! -- Gunnar "Nick" Bluth