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
