Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes: > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: >> Why is there a variadic replace() in this patch at all? It seems just >> about entirely unrelated to the stated purpose of the patch, as well >> as being of dubious usefulness.
> It used not to being exposed at the SQL level, but just an internal loop > in pg_execute_sql_file() when using the placeholders enabled > variant. Then Itagaki wanted me to expose internals so that he basically > can implement the logics in SQL directly. It seems like we went a step > too far in exposing this facility too. Agreed in removing it at the SQL > level. Well, actually, my next question was going to be about removing the variadic substitution in pg_execute_string too. It's not apparent to me that that function should have a rather lame substitution mechanism hard-wired into it, when you can do the same thing with replace() in front of it. On the whole I'd prefer not to have any substitution functionality hard-wired into pg_execute_file either, though I can see the argument that it's necessary for practical use. Basically I'm concerned that replace-equivalent behavior is not going to be satisfactory over the long run: I think eventually we're going to need to think about quoting/escaping behavior. So I think it's a bad idea to expose the assumption that it'll be done that way at the SQL level. 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