Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings

=?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.

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" ...

regards, tom lane