Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> writes:
> I think we should just leave this as it is. The user can simply rename
> the file.
Yeah. The assumption when we defined the script-weight syntax was that
there's no particular reason to use "@" in a script file name, and
I don't see why that's a bad assumption.
> Or maybe one change would be worthwhile here: First check if the part
> after the @ contains only digits. If doesn't, then assume it's part of
> the filename rather than a weight. That would fix this for cases like
> "f...@1.sql", although not for "foo@1".
I do not like introducing ambiguity of that sort. Not being entirely
clear on which script file is going to be read seems like a recipe
for security issues.
regards, tom lane
