Re: Keyword classifications

On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Now, one line of thought here is that flatten_reloptions() is out of its
>> mind to not be worrying about quoting the reloption values. And perhaps
>> it is, but I think if we go that direction, we may be fighting similar
>> fires for awhile to come. psql's describe.c, for example, doesn't worry
>> about quoting anything when printing reloptions, and there's likely
>> similar code in third-party clients. Also, a solution like this would
>> do nothing for existing dump files.
>
>> The other line of thought is that we're already making an effort to allow
>> any keyword to appear as the value of a def_arg, and maybe we should try
>> to make that work 100% instead of only 90%.
>
> After further thought I believe that the right thing to do is pursue both
> these lines of attack. Adding quoting in flatten_reloptions() seems like
> a safely back-patchable fix for the original complaint, and it's really
> necessary anyway for reloption values that don't look like either an
> identifier or a number. The grammar allows any arbitrary string constant
> to be the original form of a reloption, and we have no good reason to
> assume that extension modules will constrain their custom reloptions to
> be one or the other. (I'm thinking we'd better be prepared to
> double-quote the option names, too, just in case.)
>
> The grammar fixes seem like a good thing to do in the long run, too,
> but there's little need to risk back-patching it since accepting
> col_name_keywords without quoting would be mostly a convenience issue.

A different angle of attack is to flatten the argument quotes directly
in reloptions.c:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqTpdGLqLTxuGhBC2GabGNiFRAtLjFbxu=aGy1rX_DgwUg@mail.gmail.com
But you did not like that :p
--
Michael