Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: bytea HISTORY updates

From: Joe Conway <joseph(dot)conway(at)home(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: bytea HISTORY updates
Date: 2001-11-21 03:32:51
Message-ID: 3BFB2063.7000301@home.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Done, but didn't we use to allow \0 for NULL, while we now require \000?
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks!

I thought I had the \0 to \000 change covered by:

 >>Add:
 >>
 >>Bug Fixes
 >>  bytea \### now requires valid three digit octal number

The issue before was that, not only was something like \0123 ambiguous 
(is this \0 followed by the literal 123, or \012 followed by the literal 
3?), but also that something like \129 could be input. See:

http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=1033902
and
http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=1033930

--Joe




In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-11-21 03:35:20
Subject: Re: bytea HISTORY updates
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-11-21 03:17:47
Subject: Re: bytea datatype documentation patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group