Re: specifying repeatable read in PGOPTIONS

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2014-02-04 12:02:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> > On 2014-02-04 11:36:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> -1. This is not a general solution to the problem. There are other
>> >> GUCs for which people might want spaces in the value.
>>
>> > Sure, I didn't say it was. But I don't see any oother values that are
>> > likely being passed via PGOPTIONS that frequently contain spaces.
>>
>> application_name --- weren't we just reading about people passing entire
>> command lines there? (They must be using some other way of setting it
>> currently, but PGOPTIONS doesn't seem like an implausible source.)
>
> You can't easily use PGOPTIONS to set application_name in many cases
> anyway, libpq's support for it gets in the way since it takes effect
> later. And I think libpq is much more likely way to set it. Also you can
> simply circumvent the problem by using a different naming convention,
> that's not problem with repeatable read.
>
> So I still think we should add read_committed, repeatable_read as aliases.

Like Tom, I'm -1 on this. This is fixing the problem from the wrong end.

But introducing an escaping convention seems more than prudent.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company