Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It can be, the question is whether we're prepared to break everything
>> under the sun until people add that.
> I think we would first have to agree to issue escape_string_warning
> warnings for code in PL/pgSQL functions, then think about having
> standard_conforming_strings control PL/pgSQL behavior; this is what we
> did with SQL and it seems to have worked.
Well, considering that we are still afraid to pull the trigger on
changing the standard_conforming_strings default, it's a bit premature
to claim that it "worked" for SQL. But I agree that some kind of
stepwise process will be necessary if we want to try to change this.
IIRC there was some discussion of using plpgsql's (undocumented) #option
syntax to control this, rather than having a GUC that would be specific
to plpgsql.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
