2010/1/29 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>>> I stand by the position that it's way too late in the cycle for
>>> insufficiently-thought-out proposals for major behavioral changes.
>> I don't see how announcing this earlier in the dev cycle would help, at
> We would have more than no-time-at-all to test it and fix any breakage.
> Just to start close to home, do you really trust either psql or pg_dump
> to be completely free of standard_conforming_strings issues? How about
> JDBC or ODBC? Python drivers? PLs?
Do you mean that turning standard_conforming_string ON may lead to
error with pg_dump, psql or something else ? (I don't care of projects
outside the official postgresql tarball in this question)
Whether the param is ON or OFF by default, what does that change in this area ?
> The really short and sweet answer is that if you have any ambition at
> all to ship 9.0 this year, it is too late to add new work items. This
> is a work item, and not a small one.
> regards, tom lane
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-01-30 02:01:12|
|Subject: Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings |
|Previous:||From: Andres Freund||Date: 2010-01-30 00:31:18|
|Subject: Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings|