On Friday 29 May 2009 06:31:23 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.
No, it should be fine.
