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

Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings

From: Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Cédric Villemain <cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings
Date: 2010-01-30 06:25:59
Message-ID: 4B63D0F7.6070001@mark.mielke.cc (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 01/29/2010 09:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Maybe.  We concluded in the April 2009 thread that
> standard_conforming_strings = ON had gotten little or no field testing,
> and I don't see any strong reason to hope that it's gotten much more
> since then.  It would be rather surprising if there *aren't* any lurking
> bugs in one piece or another of client-side code.  And I don't think
> that we should be so myopic as to consider that problems in drivers and
> so forth are not of concern.
>    

Not to contradict any justifiable investigation, but just as a data point:

All of my installations use:

backslash_quote = off   # on, off, or safe_encoding
escape_string_warning = off
standard_conforming_strings = on

I have not encountered any problems so far. I use PostgreSQL in about 10 
production applications (too tired to count them out :-) ), from psql to 
PHP to Perl to Java. I had also assumed this feature was tested and 
supported when I enabled it, as it seemed to me to be the only sensible 
implementation, and it was consistent with my interpretation of SQL. I 
had done some testing before enabling it the first time and was 
satisfied with the results.

> I would be all for making this change in an orderly fashion pursuant to
> some agreed-on plan.  But cramming it in at the last minute because of
> an essentially marketing-driven change of version name isn't good
> project management, and I'm seriously afraid that doing so would bite
> us in the rear.
>
> An actual plan here might look like "let's flip it before 9.1alpha1
> so we can get some alpha testing cycles on it" ...

Yep.

Cheers,
mark


-- 
Mark Mielke<mark(at)mielke(dot)cc>


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-01-30 07:07:46
Subject: Re: Pathological regexp match
Previous:From: Oleg BartunovDate: 2010-01-30 06:12:16
Subject: rbtree test data

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