Thread: Postgre RAISE NOTICE and PHP
Hi,
I'm developing a function with some checks, for example... to check if the e-mail is valid or not.
If the e-mail is not valid I put a line with RAISE NOTICE 'E-mail not valid'.
I need to know if it is possible to show this RAISE NOTICE when I run this function from PHP.
Best Regards,
André.
I'm developing a function with some checks, for example... to check if the e-mail is valid or not.
If the e-mail is not valid I put a line with RAISE NOTICE 'E-mail not valid'.
I need to know if it is possible to show this RAISE NOTICE when I run this function from PHP.
Best Regards,
André.
>>>>> "Andre" == Andre Lopes <lopes80andre@gmail.com> writes: Andre> I'm developing a function with some checks, for example... to check if the Andre> e-mail is valid or not. How are you hoping to do this? The regex to validate an email address syntactically is pretty large: http://ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html And no, I'm not kidding. If your regex is smaller than that, you aren't validating email... you're validating something "kinda like email". For example, <fred&barney@stonehenge.com> is a valid email address. (Go ahead, try it... it has an autoresponder.) -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Andre Lopes<lopes80andre@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm developing a function with some checks, for example... to check if the > e-mail is valid or not. > > If the e-mail is not valid I put a line with RAISE NOTICE 'E-mail not > valid'. > > I need to know if it is possible to show this RAISE NOTICE when I run this > function from PHP. http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.pg-last-notice.php example plpgsql function: create or replace function tester() returns int language plpgsql as $$ BEGIN raise notice 'whoops'; return 1; END $$; example php: <?php $conn = pg_connect("dbname=smarlowe"); $res = pg_query("select tester()"); print pg_last_notice($conn); print "\n"; ?>
Andre, See this PHP page: http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.pg-last-notice.php Andre Lopes wrote: > Hi, > > I'm developing a function with some checks, for example... to check if > the e-mail is valid or not. > > If the e-mail is not valid I put a line with RAISE NOTICE 'E-mail not > valid'. > > I need to know if it is possible to show this RAISE NOTICE when I run > this function from PHP. > > > Best Regards, > André. > >
On Aug 18, 2009, at 16:45 , Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Andre > Lopes<lopes80andre@gmail.com> wrote: >> I need to know if it is possible to show this RAISE NOTICE when I >> run this >> function from PHP. > > http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.pg-last-notice.php Thanks, Scott. Is there an equivalent in PDO? Looking through the docs I don't see one. It'd also be nice to be able to get at any/all of the additional information that's passed back: warning, context, hint, etc. Michael Glaesemann grzm seespotcode net
>>>>> "Clemens" == Clemens Schwaighofer <clemens_schwaighofer@e-gra.co.jp> writes:
Clemens> Just in my opinion, this regex is completely too large. For basic
Clemens> validating something like:
Clemens>
^[A-Za-z0-9!#$%&'*+-\/=?^_`{|}~][A-Za-z0-9!#$%&'*+-\/=?^_`{|}~\.]{0,63}@[a-zA-Z0-9-]+(\.[a-zA-Z0-9-]{1,})*\.([a-zA-Z]{2,4}){1}$
Clemens> works very well
Fails on ".mobile" TLD. Has a pointless {1} in it, which does
absolutely nothing, providing that the creator of the regex was already
missing a few clues.
That's the problem with these kinds of regex... you test it on what
you know, but you're not consulting the *actual* *internet* specifications
(which have been readily available since the dawn of Internet time).
Either use the regex I pointed to already, or stay with the simpler:
/\S.*@.*\S/
which will at least not deny anyone with a *perfectly legitimate* email
address from making it into your system.
Or, use your regex *only* in an *advice* category, with the ability
for the user to say "yes, I'm really sure this is my address".
Please, for the sake of the net, do the Right Thing here. This is
what I'm arguing for. Anything less than that, and your code deserves
to end up in thedailywtf.com as an example of what *not* to do.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 02:11, Randal L. Schwartz<merlyn@stonehenge.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Andre" == Andre Lopes <lopes80andre@gmail.com> writes: > > Andre> I'm developing a function with some checks, for example... to check if the > Andre> e-mail is valid or not. > > How are you hoping to do this? The regex to validate an email > address syntactically is pretty large: > > http://ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html > > And no, I'm not kidding. If your regex is smaller than that, you aren't > validating email... you're validating something "kinda like email". Just in my opinion, this regex is completely too large. For basic validating something like: ^[A-Za-z0-9!#$%&'*+-\/=?^_`{|}~][A-Za-z0-9!#$%&'*+-\/=?^_`{|}~\.]{0,63}@[a-zA-Z0-9-]+(\.[a-zA-Z0-9-]{1,})*\.([a-zA-Z]{2,4}){1}$ works very well > For example, <fred&barney@stonehenge.com> is a valid email address. (Go > ahead, try it... it has an autoresponder.) > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > -- ★ Clemens 呉 Schwaighofer ★ IT Engineer/Web Producer/Planning ★ E-Graphics Communications SP Digital ★ 6-17-2 Ginza Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-8167, JAPAN ★ Tel: +81-(0)3-3545-7706 ★ Fax: +81-(0)3-3545-7343 ★ http://www.e-gra.co.jp This e-mail is intended only for the named person or entity to which it is addressed and contains valuable business informationthat is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you received this e-mail in error,any review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediatelyof the error via e-mail to disclaimer@tbwaworld.com and please delete the e-mail from your system, retainingno copies in any media. We appreciate your cooperation.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Randal L.
Schwartz<merlyn@stonehenge.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Clemens" == Clemens Schwaighofer <clemens_schwaighofer@e-gra.co.jp> writes:
>
> Clemens> Just in my opinion, this regex is completely too large. For basic
> Clemens> validating something like:
> Clemens>
^[A-Za-z0-9!#$%&'*+-\/=?^_`{|}~][A-Za-z0-9!#$%&'*+-\/=?^_`{|}~\.]{0,63}@[a-zA-Z0-9-]+(\.[a-zA-Z0-9-]{1,})*\.([a-zA-Z]{2,4}){1}$
> Clemens> works very well
>
> Fails on ".mobile" TLD. Has a pointless {1} in it, which does
> absolutely nothing, providing that the creator of the regex was already
> missing a few clues.
Remonds me of the saying that for every complex problem there is a
simple, elegant and incorrect solution.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:57:45AM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Randal L.
> Schwartz<merlyn@stonehenge.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> "Clemens" == Clemens Schwaighofer <clemens_schwaighofer@e-gra.co.jp> writes:
> >
> > Clemens> Just in my opinion, this regex is completely too large. For basic
> > Clemens> validating something like:
> > Clemens>
^[A-Za-z0-9!#$%&'*+-\/=?^_`{|}~][A-Za-z0-9!#$%&'*+-\/=?^_`{|}~\.]{0,63}@[a-zA-Z0-9-]+(\.[a-zA-Z0-9-]{1,})*\.([a-zA-Z]{2,4}){1}$
> > Clemens> works very well
> >
> > Fails on ".mobile" TLD. Has a pointless {1} in it, which does
> > absolutely nothing, providing that the creator of the regex was already
> > missing a few clues.
>
> Remonds me of the saying that for every complex problem there is a
> simple, elegant and incorrect solution.
That's from H. L. Mencken.
For every complex problem, there is an answer which is clear,
simple, and wrong.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
>>>>> "Clemens" == Clemens Schwaighofer <clemens_schwaighofer@e-gra.co.jp> writes: Clemens> I am not going to defend any regex here, but in my opinion it helps on Clemens> what I want to see in email addresses. Clemens> Yes it fails on mobile, but I have not yet seen one. And that's the problem. You get near-sighted if you put up a strong validation for only things that *you* have seen. Because, guess what, nobody outside your narrow view can sign up or be a customer. Bad for business. Clemens> Probably the best Clemens> thing is to test nothing at all. Just accept it ... Exactly! If you don't want to use the 950-character regex, DON'T DO ANYTHING AT ALL. Far simpler. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
On 08/19/2009 11:41 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>>>> "Clemens" == Clemens Schwaighofer <clemens_schwaighofer@e-gra.co.jp> writes:
>
> Clemens> Just in my opinion, this regex is completely too large. For basic
> Clemens> validating something like:
> Clemens>
^[A-Za-z0-9!#$%&'*+-\/=?^_`{|}~][A-Za-z0-9!#$%&'*+-\/=?^_`{|}~\.]{0,63}@[a-zA-Z0-9-]+(\.[a-zA-Z0-9-]{1,})*\.([a-zA-Z]{2,4}){1}$
> Clemens> works very well
>
> Fails on ".mobile" TLD. Has a pointless {1} in it, which does
> absolutely nothing, providing that the creator of the regex was already
> missing a few clues.
>
> That's the problem with these kinds of regex... you test it on what
> you know, but you're not consulting the *actual* *internet* specifications
> (which have been readily available since the dawn of Internet time).
>
> Either use the regex I pointed to already, or stay with the simpler:
>
> /\S.*@.*\S/
>
> which will at least not deny anyone with a *perfectly legitimate* email
> address from making it into your system.
>
> Or, use your regex *only* in an *advice* category, with the ability
> for the user to say "yes, I'm really sure this is my address".
>
> Please, for the sake of the net, do the Right Thing here. This is
> what I'm arguing for. Anything less than that, and your code deserves
> to end up in thedailywtf.com as an example of what *not* to do.
I am not going to defend any regex here, but in my opinion it helps on
what I want to see in email addresses.
Yes it fails on mobile, but I have not yet seen one. Probably the best
thing is to test nothing at all. Just accept it ...
--
[ Clemens Schwaighofer -----=====:::::~ ]
[ IT Engineer/Web Producer/Planning ]
[ E-Graphics Communications SP Digital ]
[ 6-17-2 Ginza Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-8167, JAPAN ]
[ Tel: +81-(0)3-3545-7706 Fax: +81-(0)3-3545-7343 ]
[ http://www.e-gra.co.jp ]
Attachment
On 2009-08-19, Clemens Schwaighofer <clemens_schwaighofer@e-gra.co.jp> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 02:11, Randal L. Schwartz<merlyn@stonehenge.com> wrote: >>>>>>> "Andre" == Andre Lopes <lopes80andre@gmail.com> writes: >> >> Andre> I'm developing a function with some checks, for example... to check if the >> Andre> e-mail is valid or not. >> >> How are you hoping to do this? The regex to validate an email >> address syntactically is pretty large: >> >> http://ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html >> >> And no, I'm not kidding. If your regex is smaller than that, you aren't >> validating email... you're validating something "kinda like email". > > Just in my opinion, this regex is completely too large. For basic > validating something like: > ^[A-Za-z0-9!#$%&'*+-\/=?^_`{|}~][A-Za-z0-9!#$%&'*+-\/=?^_`{|}~\.]{0,63}@[a-zA-Z0-9-]+(\.[a-zA-Z0-9-]{1,})*\.([a-zA-Z]{2,4}){1}$ > works very well not good: eg: fails this valid address* : admin@xxxxxxx.museum accepts this invalid one : you@gmail..com "musedoma" replaced with several x to protect the innocent from spam in some contexts email adrresses with no domain part are valid addresses with [bracketed] mx servers instead of a domain and/or bang paths are also allowed (but not in common use and often not desirable)
On 2009-08-20, Randal L. Schwartz <merlyn@stonehenge.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Clemens" == Clemens Schwaighofer <clemens_schwaighofer@e-gra.co.jp> writes: > >Clemens> I am not going to defend any regex here, but in my opinion it helps on >Clemens> what I want to see in email addresses. >Clemens> Yes it fails on mobile, but I have not yet seen one. > > And that's the problem. You get near-sighted if you put up a strong > validation for only things that *you* have seen. Because, guess what, > nobody outside your narrow view can sign up or be a customer. > > Bad for business. > >Clemens> Probably the best >Clemens> thing is to test nothing at all. Just accept it ... > > Exactly! If you don't want to use the 950-character regex, DON'T DO > ANYTHING AT ALL. Far simpler. Or do an MX lookup on the domain part (or a partial attempt to route mail*) before sending it to the database. *contact the domains MX and in SMTP go as far as "RCPT TO: ... " and then send "QUIT" after it is accepted or refused.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 01:03:47PM +0000, Jasen Betts wrote: > On 2009-08-20, Randal L. Schwartz <merlyn@stonehenge.com> wrote: > > Exactly! If you don't want to use the 950-character regex, DON'T DO > > ANYTHING AT ALL. Far simpler. > > Or do an MX lookup on the domain part (or a partial attempt to route > mail*) before sending it to the database. > > *contact the domains MX and in SMTP go as far as "RCPT TO: ... " and > then send "QUIT" after it is accepted or refused. Why not just go the whole way and send an email asking for confirmation? When you get a response you know the email address is actually useful for contacting the user, rather than it being a typo and going somewhere else. -- Sam http://samason.me.uk/
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 21:52, Jasen Betts<jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote: > On 2009-08-19, Clemens Schwaighofer <clemens_schwaighofer@e-gra.co.jp> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 02:11, Randal L. Schwartz<merlyn@stonehenge.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> "Andre" == Andre Lopes <lopes80andre@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>> Andre> I'm developing a function with some checks, for example... to check if the >>> Andre> e-mail is valid or not. >>> >>> How are you hoping to do this? The regex to validate an email >>> address syntactically is pretty large: >>> >>> http://ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html >>> >>> And no, I'm not kidding. If your regex is smaller than that, you aren't >>> validating email... you're validating something "kinda like email". >> >> Just in my opinion, this regex is completely too large. For basic >> validating something like: >> ^[A-Za-z0-9!#$%&'*+-\/=?^_`{|}~][A-Za-z0-9!#$%&'*+-\/=?^_`{|}~\.]{0,63}@[a-zA-Z0-9-]+(\.[a-zA-Z0-9-]{1,})*\.([a-zA-Z]{2,4}){1}$ >> works very well > > not good: eg: > > fails this valid address* : admin@xxxxxxx.museum yes it does, but all I need to change is {2,4}, to {2,6} or {2,} > accepts this invalid one : you@gmail..com and not it does not. I just tested it here. The regex helps to avoid stuff like this: foo]@bar.com foo@@bar.com foo@.bar.com foo@bar etc > > "musedoma" replaced with several x to protect the innocent from spam > > in some contexts email adrresses with no domain part are valid > addresses with [bracketed] mx servers instead of a domain and/or bang > paths are also allowed (but not in common use and often not desirable) > > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > -- ★ Clemens 呉 Schwaighofer ★ IT Engineer/Web Producer/Planning ★ E-Graphics Communications SP Digital ★ 6-17-2 Ginza Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-8167, JAPAN ★ Tel: +81-(0)3-3545-7706 ★ Fax: +81-(0)3-3545-7343 ★ http://www.e-gra.co.jp This e-mail is intended only for the named person or entity to which it is addressed and contains valuable business informationthat is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you received this e-mail in error,any review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediatelyof the error via e-mail to disclaimer@tbwaworld.com and please delete the e-mail from your system, retainingno copies in any media. We appreciate your cooperation.