Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings
Date: 2010-01-29 21:24:07
Message-ID: 201001292124.o0TLO7a00598@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 14:03, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 13:42, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > I stand by the position that it's way too late in the cycle for
> > insufficiently-thought-out proposals for major behavioral changes.
> 
> After skimming the thread Bruce linked:
>  http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-04/msg00512.php
> 
> It certainly seems "insufficiently-thought-out".  :(

Is this still true?  When we changed plpgsql so it shared the scanner
with the backend scanner, does this issue no longer apply, i.e. 
consider honoring standard_conforming_strings in PL/pgSQL function
bodies?
	
-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-01-29 21:32:16
Subject: Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2010-01-29 21:20:16
Subject: Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group