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

Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings

From: Cédric Villemain <cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: 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 12:19:44
Message-ID: e94e14cd1001300419v48eb3391h9a4bdc64e3bc091@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2010/1/30 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?C=E9dric_Villemain?= <cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2010/1/29 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>> 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)
>
> 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.

Sure, I was just a bit scared because of production servers with
standard_conforming_string ON.
One interesting thing in this area is that I found very usefull to
turn this param ON for windows path. (so perhaps we will have more
testing coming from windows users than others ...)

>
> 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.

I agree and I don't care this parameter is really on or off by
default. I just wanted to be sure it is sane enough to use it.

>
> An actual plan here might look like "let's flip it before 9.1alpha1
> so we can get some alpha testing cycles on it" ...

Sounds good.

-- 
Cédric Villemain

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-01-30 13:30:11
Subject: Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-01-30 11:38:08
Subject: Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

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