| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GUC names in messages |
| Date: | 2023-11-01 20:46:52 |
| Message-ID: | 4b83f9888428925e3049e24b60a73f4b94dc2368.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2023-11-01 at 16:12 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 01.11.23 10:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> > And there's never been any
> > real clarity about whether to quote GUC names, though certainly we're
> > more likely to quote anything injected with %s. So that's why we have
> > a mishmash right now.
>
> I'm leaning toward not quoting GUC names. The quoting is needed in
> places where the value can be arbitrary, to avoid potential confusion.
> But the GUC names are well-known, and we wouldn't add confusing GUC
> names like "table" or "not found" in the future.
I agree for names with underscores in them. But I think that quoting
is necessary for names like "timezone" or "datestyle" that might be
mistaken for normal words. My personal preference is to always quote
GUC names, but I think it is OK not to quote GOCs whose name are
clearly not natural language words.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-11-01 21:13:03 | Re: generate syscache info automatically |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-11-01 20:39:24 | Re: Remove distprep |