| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Wang Haiyong <wanghaiyong(at)neusoft(dot)com>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: With Function 'Chr', is it a bug? |
| Date: | 2007-01-17 14:53:53 |
| Message-ID: | 9259.1169045633@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Off the top of my head I would have thought there was a good case for
> raising an error on chr(0). Aren't null bytes forbidden in text values?
They're not supported, but we don't make any strenuous efforts to
prevent them. A watertight prohibition would require extra effort in a
lot of places, not only chr(). The string literal parser and text_recv
and friends come to mind immediately; there are probably some others.
Maybe we should lock all that down, but I don't see any percentage in
fixing just one place.
btw, I just noticed that chr() doesn't complain about arguments
exceeding 255 ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-01-17 15:05:00 | Re: [PATCHES] pg_standby |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-01-17 14:15:08 | Re: What is the motivation of include directive and |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-01-17 15:05:00 | Re: [PATCHES] pg_standby |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-01-17 14:08:02 | Re: With Function 'Chr', is it a bug? |