> > > > 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').

Comments?

-- Joe

In response to

• Re: byteain bug(?) at 2001-09-07 04:24:14 from Bruce Momjian

Responses

• Re: byteain bug(?) at 2001-09-07 14:25:57 from Bruce Momjian

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Barry Lind	Date: 2001-09-07 06:39:53
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] JDBC pg_description update needed for CVS tip
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2001-09-07 05:34:46
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] JDBC pg_description update needed for CVS tip