Re: Unicode string literals versus the world

On 4/15/09, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com> writes:
> > Whats wrong with requiring U& to conform with stdstr=off quoting rules?
>
>  The sole and only excuse for that misbegotten syntax is to be exactly
>  SQL spec compliant --- otherwise we might as well pick something saner.
>  So it needs to work like stdstr=on.  I thought Peter's proposal of
>  rejecting it altogether when stdstr=off might be reasonable.  The space
>  sensitivity around the & still sucks, but I have not (yet) thought of
>  a credible security exploit for that.

So the U& syntax is only available if stdstr=on?  Sort of makes sense.

As both this and the doubling-\\ way would mean we should have usable
alternative in case of stdstr=off also, so in the end we have agreed
to accept \u also?

-- 
marko