Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> I still think that changing it now is going to open a can of worms that
>> we shouldn't be opening at this stage.  We have got more than enough to
>> worry about for 9.0 already.  I think it is absolute folly to believe
>> that this is only going to be a matter of "flip the default and nothing
>> else is going to pop up".
>
> I'll support Tom on this.  I'm already worried about the timeline.

Vote time? +1 for Tom's idea that plates are already full.

At the same time, escape_string_warning = on is the default and I guess
everybody find it annoying enough to use the E'foo\tbar' syntax, which
will work all the same once standard_conforming_strings is on. By
design.

And the fact than switching the GUC to off again is so easy makes me
wonder about how high the risk is for third party code. It has been said
earlier in this thread that one of the risky clients is pg_dump. That's
what balances it for me.

Do anyone know how much downloads or testing the alphas have seen?
-- 
dim

In response to

• Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings at 2010-02-03 19:13:43 from Josh Berkus

Responses

• Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings at 2010-02-03 22:39:35 from marcin mank

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Oleg Bartunov	Date: 2010-02-03 21:51:16
	Subject: Re: [CFReview] Red-Black Tree
Previous:	From: Erik Rijkers	Date: 2010-02-03 21:39:52
	Subject: testing cvs HEAD - HS/SR - cannot stat