Re: Tightening up allowed custom GUC names

From: Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski <me(at)komzpa(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Tightening up allowed custom GUC names
Date: 2021-02-11 18:59:46
Message-ID: CAC8Q8t+siW_K1dXrz+3ZkJ=HmYAenmNvKu_eyJLNeH5=+jfwUA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

чц, 11 лют 2021, 21:33 карыстальнік Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> напісаў:

> Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 05:34:37PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> * A case could be made for tightening things up a lot more, and not
> >> allowing anything that doesn't look like an identifier. I'm not
> >> pushing for that, as it seems more likely to break existing
> >> applications than the narrow restriction proposed here. But I could
> >> live with it if people prefer that way.
>
> > I'd prefer that. Characters like backslash, space, and double quote have
> > significant potential to reveal bugs, while having negligible application
> > beyond revealing bugs.
>
> Any other opinions here? I'm hesitant to make such a change on the
> basis of just one vote.
>

+1 for the change. I have not seen usage of = and - in the wild in GUC
names but can see a harm of mis-interpretation of these.

> regards, tom lane
>
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2021-02-11 19:40:08 Re: repeated decoding of prepared transactions
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-02-11 18:58:54 Re: Allowing create database within transaction block