On 15 March 2015 at 08:44, Tom Lane wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" writes:
> > IOW, as long as the output string matches: ^"(?:"{2})*"$ I do not see
> how
> > it is possible for format to lay in a value at %I that is any more
> > insecure than the current behavior. If the input string already m
On Sunday, March 15, 2015, Tom Lane wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" > writes:
> > IOW, as long as the output string matches: ^"(?:"{2})*"$ I do not see
> how
> > it is possible for format to lay in a value at %I that is any more
> > insecure than the current behavior. If the input string already
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> âIOW, as long as the output string matches: ^"(?:"{2})*"$ I do not see how
> it is possible âfor format to lay in a value at %I that is any more
> insecure than the current behavior. If the input string already matches
> that pattern then it could be output as-is
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jason Dusek writes:
> > It honestly seems far more reasonable to me that %s and %I should do
> > the exact same thing with regclass.
>
> You're mistaken. The operation of format() is first to convert the
> non-format arguments to text strings,
2015-03-15 3:09 GMT+01:00 Jason Dusek :
> On 14 March 2015 at 09:17, David G. Johnston
> wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 14, 2015, Jason Dusek wrote:
> >> It honestly seems far more reasonable to me that %s and %I should do
> >> the exact same thing with regclass. My reasoning is as follows:
> >>
On 14 March 2015 at 09:17, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Saturday, March 14, 2015, Jason Dusek wrote:
>> It honestly seems far more reasonable to me that %s and %I should do
>> the exact same thing with regclass. My reasoning is as follows:
>>
>> ‘%I’ formats a something such that it is a valid i
On Saturday, March 14, 2015, Jason Dusek wrote:
> It honestly seems far more reasonable to me that %s and %I should do
> the exact same thing with regclass. My reasoning is as follows:
>
> ‘%I’ formats a something such that it is a valid identifier,
>
> regclass is already a valid identifier,
>
>
Jason Dusek writes:
> It honestly seems far more reasonable to me that %s and %I should do
> the exact same thing with regclass.
You're mistaken. The operation of format() is first to convert the
non-format arguments to text strings, using the output functions for their
data types, and then to f
2015-03-14 10:09 GMT+01:00 Jason Dusek :
> It honestly seems far more reasonable to me that %s and %I should do
> the exact same thing with regclass. My reasoning is as follows:
>
> ‘%I’ formats a something such that it is a valid identifier,
>
> regclass is already a valid identifier,
>
> therefo
It honestly seems far more reasonable to me that %s and %I should do
the exact same thing with regclass. My reasoning is as follows:
‘%I’ formats a something such that it is a valid identifier,
regclass is already a valid identifier,
therefore, do nothing.
Another line of reasoning:
If you for
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Jason Dusek wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The difference in how format handles `regclass` and `name` seems like an
> inconsistency:
>
> WITH conversions(casts, format, result) AS (
> VALUES (ARRAY['name']::regtype[], '%I', format('%I',
> name('select')
Hi All,
The difference in how format handles `regclass` and `name` seems like an
inconsistency:
WITH conversions(casts, format, result) AS (
VALUES (ARRAY['name']::regtype[], '%I', format('%I',
name('select'))),
(ARRAY['name']::regtype[], '%L', format('%
12 matches
Mail list logo
