On 15 March 2015 at 08:44, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
David G. Johnston david.g.johns...@gmail.com 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
On Sunday, March 15, 2015, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
David G. Johnston david.g.johns...@gmail.com javascript:; 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
David G. Johnston david.g.johns...@gmail.com 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
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Jason Dusek jason.du...@gmail.com 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
On 14 March 2015 at 09:17, David G. Johnston david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2015, Jason Dusek jason.du...@gmail.com 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’
2015-03-15 3:09 GMT+01:00 Jason Dusek jason.du...@gmail.com:
On 14 March 2015 at 09:17, David G. Johnston david.g.johns...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2015, Jason Dusek jason.du...@gmail.com wrote:
It honestly seems far more reasonable to me that %s and %I should do
the exact
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
2015-03-14 10:09 GMT+01:00 Jason Dusek jason.du...@gmail.com:
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
On Saturday, March 14, 2015, Jason Dusek jason.du...@gmail.com 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
Jason Dusek jason.du...@gmail.com 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
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',
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Jason Dusek jason.du...@gmail.com 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',
12 matches
Mail list logo
