[MASSMAIL]removal of '{' from WORD_BREAKS
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | [MASSMAIL]removal of '{' from WORD_BREAKS |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYa47SJoxmZmo0jf1XL1JOYZ4Spc4+Pzk2MDDD0a2g0sA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: removal of '{' from WORD_BREAKS
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 10:38 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > It kind of looks like a libedit bug, but maybe we should dig more > > deeply. I felt itchy about 927332b95e77 removing '{' from the > > WORD_BREAKS set, and wondered exactly how that would change readline's > > behavior. But even if that somehow accounts for the extra backslash > > before '{', it's not clear how it could lead to '?' and '}' also > > getting backslashed. > > I don't have a clear idea, either. I also feel uneasy about > 927332b95e77 and its change of WORD_BREAKS, but this has the smell > of a bug from an outdated libedit version. I too felt uneasy about that commit, for the same reason. However, there is a justification for the change in the commit message which is not obviously wrong, namely that ":{?name} is the only psql syntax using the '{' sign". And in fact, SQL basically doesn't use '{' for anything, either. We do see { showing up inside of quoted strings, for arrays or JSON, but I would guess that the word-break characters aren't going to affect behavior within a quoted string. So it still seems like it should be OK? Another thing that makes me think that my unease may be unfounded is that the matching character '}' isn't in WORD_BREAKS either, and I would have thought that if we needed one we'd need both. But does anyone else have a more specific reason for thinking that this might be a problem? -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: