|From:||Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Subject:||Re: Loose ends after CVE-2020-14350 (extension installation hazards)|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 08/14/20 15:38, Tom Lane wrote:
> (3) If the SQL syntax is really just "WITH variable value [, ...]"
> then I'm afraid we're going to have a lot of parse-ambiguity problems
> with wedging full SET syntax into that. The ability for the righthand
There is precedent in the SET command for having one general syntax
usable for any GUC, and specialized ones for a few 'special' GUCs
(search_path, client_encoding, timezone).
Maybe WITH could be done the same way, inventing some less thorny syntax
for the general case
WITH (foo = bar, baz), (quux = 42), XMLBINARY BASE64, a AS (SELECT...)
and treating just the few like XMLBINARY that appear in the standard
as having equivalent specialized productions?
The only examples of the syntax in the standard that are coming to mind
right now are those I've seen in the SQL/XML part, but I feel like I have
seen others, as if the committee kind of likes their WITH local-setting-
of-something syntax, and additional examples may continue to appear.
|Next Message||Alvaro Herrera||2020-08-14 20:22:35||Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner|
|Previous Message||Mikhail Titov||2020-08-14 19:57:38||Re: [bug+patch] Inserting DEFAULT into generated columns from VALUES RTE|