> > > > > It checks for a '\' followed by three digits, but does not attempt
> to
> > > > > enforce that the three digits actually produce a valid octal number.
> > > Anyone
> > > > > object to me fixing this?
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Based on the thread this morning on patches, I was thinking we should
> allow
> > > '\\', '\0', or '\###' where ### is any valid octal. At least that's what
> I
> > > was going to have decode(bytea, 'escape') handle.
> >
> > Yep, it is way too open right now.
>
> On further thought, I think I'll have to not allow '\0' and require '\000'
> instead. Otherwise, how should the following be interpreted:
>
> '\0123'
>
> Is that '\0' followed by the literals '1', '2', and '3'? Or is it '\012'
> followed by the literal '3'?
>
> So, I'll go with '\\' or '\###' where ### is any valid octal, for both
> byteain and decode(bytea, 'escape').
Very good point.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
