byteain bug(?)

Should be fixed. I noticed this myself. Should we require three digits?

I just noticed some unexpected behavior from byteain:

test=# select '\\009'::bytea;
?column?
----------
\011
(1 row)

test=# select '\\444'::bytea;
?column?
----------
$
(1 row)

test=# select '\\999'::bytea;
?column?
----------
\221
(1 row)

The reason is the following code in byteain:

else if (!isdigit((unsigned char) *tp++) ||
!isdigit((unsigned char) *tp++) ||
!isdigit((unsigned char) *tp++))
elog(ERROR, "Bad input string for type bytea");

It checks for a '\' followed by three digits, but does not attempt to
enforce that the three digits actually produce a valid octal number. Anyone
object to me fixing this?

-- Joe

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

"Joe Conway" <joseph.conway@home.com> writes:

It checks for a '\' followed by three digits, but does not attempt to
enforce that the three digits actually produce a valid octal number. Anyone
object to me fixing this?

Clearly a bug. Fix away...

regards, tom lane

Should be fixed. I noticed this myself. Should we require three digits?

I just noticed some unexpected behavior from byteain:

test=# select '\\009'::bytea;
?column?
----------
\011
(1 row)

<snip>

It checks for a '\' followed by three digits, but does not attempt to
enforce that the three digits actually produce a valid octal number.

Anyone

object to me fixing this?

Based on the thread this morning on patches, I was thinking we should allow
'\\', '\0', or '\###' where ### is any valid octal. At least that's what I
was going to have decode(bytea, 'escape') handle.

-- Joe

It checks for a '\' followed by three digits, but does not attempt to
enforce that the three digits actually produce a valid octal number.

Anyone

object to me fixing this?

Based on the thread this morning on patches, I was thinking we should allow
'\\', '\0', or '\###' where ### is any valid octal. At least that's what I
was going to have decode(bytea, 'escape') handle.

Yep, it is way too open right now.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

It checks for a '\' followed by three digits, but does not attempt

to

enforce that the three digits actually produce a valid octal number.

Anyone

object to me fixing this?

Based on the thread this morning on patches, I was thinking we should

allow

'\\', '\0', or '\###' where ### is any valid octal. At least that's what

I

was going to have decode(bytea, 'escape') handle.

Yep, it is way too open right now.

On further thought, I think I'll have to not allow '\0' and require '\000'
instead. Otherwise, how should the following be interpreted:

'\0123'

Is that '\0' followed by the literals '1', '2', and '3'? Or is it '\012'
followed by the literal '3'?

So, I'll go with '\\' or '\###' where ### is any valid octal, for both
byteain and decode(bytea, 'escape').

Comments?

-- Joe

It checks for a '\' followed by three digits, but does not attempt

to

enforce that the three digits actually produce a valid octal number.

Anyone

object to me fixing this?

Based on the thread this morning on patches, I was thinking we should

allow

'\\', '\0', or '\###' where ### is any valid octal. At least that's what

I

was going to have decode(bytea, 'escape') handle.

Yep, it is way too open right now.

On further thought, I think I'll have to not allow '\0' and require '\000'
instead. Otherwise, how should the following be interpreted:

'\0123'

Is that '\0' followed by the literals '1', '2', and '3'? Or is it '\012'
followed by the literal '3'?

So, I'll go with '\\' or '\###' where ### is any valid octal, for both
byteain and decode(bytea, 'escape').

Very good point.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026