Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> The grammar fixes seem like a good thing to do in the long run, too, >> but there's little need to risk back-patching it since accepting >> col_name_keywords without quoting would be mostly a convenience issue.
> A different angle of attack is to flatten the argument quotes directly > in reloptions.c: > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqTpdGLqLTxuGhBC2GabGNiFRAtLjFbxu=agy1rx_dg...@mail.gmail.com > But you did not like that :p It seemed pretty messy. There is nothing very wrong with the convention that pg_class.reloptions is an array of "name=value" entries with both name and value being taken literally. The only thing that rule excludes is that the option name cannot include an "=", which is a restriction that bothers me not at all. The dumped form of reloptions needs to meet the grammar restrictions on what can be in WITH, but that's really a separate question. The bug we had was that pg_dump and ruleutils.c weren't considering that the rules might be different for the two representations. Yeah, you could fix it by insisting that the rules be identical, but I don't really find that cleaner (and it could not be a back-patchable fix for existing databases, anyway). 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
