Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings

Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 14:03, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 13:42, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > I stand by the position that it's way too late in the cycle for
> > insufficiently-thought-out proposals for major behavioral changes.
>
> After skimming the thread Bruce linked:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-04/msg00512.php
>
> It certainly seems "insufficiently-thought-out". :(

Is this still true? When we changed plpgsql so it shared the scanner
with the backend scanner, does this issue no longer apply, i.e.
consider honoring standard_conforming_strings in PL/pgSQL function
bodies?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +