Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 May 2009 03:01:05 Tom Lane wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
