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. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
