Tom Lane wrote: Cédric Villemain wrote: >> Do you mean that turning standard_conforming_string ON may lead to >> error with pg_dump, psql or something else ?
> Maybe. We concluded in the April 2009 thread that > standard_conforming_strings = ON had gotten little or no field > testing, Well, we've been using it in hundreds of databases as our standard setting in postgresql.conf since February, 2006. We've used pg_dump with it many hundreds of times, and tens of millions of JDBC transactions per day since then. We use psql heavily, too. Not a single sign of problems with it. Surely that bumps the needle above "little or no field testing". Certainly there are PLs and PostgreSQL features we don't use which should be tested first, but let's not overstate the case. > An actual plan here might look like "let's flip it before 9.1alpha1 > so we can get some alpha testing cycles on it" ... That sounds sane. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
