Re: Can we remove support for standard_conforming_strings = off yet?

From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Can we remove support for standard_conforming_strings = off yet?
Date: 2026-01-05 12:01:15
Message-ID: aVuoC2zL3DA8tgOT@jrouhaud
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 05, 2026 at 05:03:48PM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 1, 2026 at 12:04 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Personally I would call it a deal-breaker if I thought it'd affect
> > more than a very very tiny number of people. But the entire premise
> > of this patch is that nobody is using standard_conforming_strings =
> > off in production anymore. If that isn't true it's probably a
> > mistake to go forward anyway.
>
> FWIW, I spent a few minutes looking, and I only found issues from ~5
> years ago about software not working with the setting off. I didn't
> see any details on what they were running in the application stack
> that required it:
>
> https://github.com/PostgREST/postgrest/issues/1992
>
> https://github.com/npgsql/npgsql/issues/3333

I had another one ~4 years ago:

https://github.com/powa-team/powa-archivist/issues/51

Since I fixed powa-archivist at that time, I don't know if anyone else would
have faced the same problem, although the OP is likely still using the same
setting.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2026-01-05 12:11:38 Re: Allow GUC settings in CREATE SUBSCRIPTION CONNECTION to take effect
Previous Message Dilip Kumar 2026-01-05 11:40:10 Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication