-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
> Any ideas about better answers? Seems like you covered it - anything other than memcmp() is going to require a lot of brainz and have lots of sharp edges. > But this example shows that we'd really have to enforce the rule > of "no ill-defined bytes" for just about every user-callable > function's results, which is a pretty ugly prospect. Why is that so ugly? Seems the most logical route. And even if we don't get all of them right away (e.g. not 'enforced' right away), we're no worse off than we are now, but we don't have to dive into retraining equal() or touch any other parts of the code. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201104262139 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAk23dGEACgkQvJuQZxSWSsidwQCgrIc1I85P6a1jF5Xwq1vRbzwF v/wAoImYBZZo930+IGgL61BEQ+1YCMaN =9fkS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
