←back to thread

620 points tambourine_man | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.627s | source
Show context
serbuvlad ◴[] No.43750075[source]
All things considered, this is pretty cool. Basically, this replaces

    db.execute("QUERY WHERE name = ?", (name,))
with

    db.execute(t"QUERY WHERE name = {name}")
Does the benefit from this syntactic sugar outweigh the added complexity of a new language feature? I think it does in this case for two reasons:

1. Allowing library developers to do whatever they want with {} expansions is a good thing, and will probably spawn some good uses.

2. Generalizing template syntax across a language, so that all libraries solve this problem in the same way, is probably a good thing.

replies(12): >>43750226 #>>43750250 #>>43750260 #>>43750279 #>>43750513 #>>43750750 #>>43752117 #>>43752173 #>>43752293 #>>43754738 #>>43756560 #>>43763190 #
benwilber0 ◴[] No.43752173[source]
Aren't there other benefits to server-side parameter binding besides just SQL-injection safety? For instance, using PG's extended protocol (binary) instead of just raw SQL strings. Caching parameterized prepared statements, etc.

Also:

    db.execute(t"QUERY WHERE name = {name}")
Is dangerously close to:

    db.execute(f"QUERY WHERE name = {name}")

A single character difference and now you've just made yourself trivially injectible.

I don't think this new format specifier is in any way applicable to SQL queries.

replies(12): >>43752236 #>>43752283 #>>43752331 #>>43752336 #>>43752358 #>>43752859 #>>43753280 #>>43753699 #>>43754372 #>>43754646 #>>43755330 #>>43756720 #
1. InstaPage ◴[] No.43754646[source]
t vs f going to be hard to spot.
replies(1): >>43754771 #
2. acdha ◴[] No.43754771[source]
This is true of many other things, which is why we have type checkers and linters to be perfectly rigorous rather than expecting humans to never make mistakes.
replies(1): >>43769324 #
3. PennRobotics ◴[] No.43769324[source]
and syntax highlighting