Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >
> >>Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >>
> >>>The correct lingo would be standard_conforming_strings. I'm going to
> >>>change
> >>>that.
> >
> >
> >>Sounds good.
> >
> >
> > No problem here either.
> >
>
> So does that mean f
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
The correct lingo would be standard_conforming_strings. I'm going to change
that.
Sounds good.
No problem here either.
So does that mean for 8.1 it will be:
standard_conforming_strings = on/off
?
Another question
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> The correct lingo would be standard_conforming_strings. I'm going to change
>> that.
> Sounds good.
No problem here either.
> Another question is whether this should be backpatched to
> our next 7.4.X or 8.0.X release as read-only variables.
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 3. August 2005 15:40 schrieb Oliver Jowett:
> > The impression I got from previous discussion was that you need to check
> > the value of the standard_compliant_strings GUC, and double backslashes
> > inside '' only if it was false or missing.
>
> The correct
Am Mittwoch, 3. August 2005 15:40 schrieb Oliver Jowett:
> The impression I got from previous discussion was that you need to check
> the value of the standard_compliant_strings GUC, and double backslashes
> inside '' only if it was false or missing.
The correct lingo would be standard_conforming_
Am Mittwoch, 3. August 2005 15:40 schrieb Oliver Jowett:
> > To be standards-conforming, don't use any backslash escapes. If you must
> > use them, use the E'' notation.
>
> That doesn't really answer the question, though, since none of
> 7.4/8.0/8.1 interprets '' strings in a strictly standards-c
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>Also, let's say I have apps now in 7.4/8.0, and I want them to be
>>forward-compatible. Should I make a type called E so that the E''
>>notation will work, and then use that for strings? What is the "right"
>>way to do it?
>
> To be standards-conforming, don't use any ba
Am Mittwoch, 3. August 2005 01:18 schrieb Jeff Davis:
> I guess what I'm trying to find out: does this mean that after all this
> change to the way strings are handled in the future, PostgreSQL still
> won't be standards-compliant for the basic '' string?
It will be more conforming regarding backs
Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Jeff Davis wrote:
>
>
Does the SQL standard provide no way to have a NULL character in a
string constant? Is single-quote the only special character?
>>>
>>>I don't think it forbids you from using the null character. It's not like
>>>the stri
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Jeff Davis wrote:
> >>Does the SQL standard provide no way to have a NULL character in a
> >>string constant? Is single-quote the only special character?
> >
> > I don't think it forbids you from using the null character. It's not like
> > the strings are zero terminated. Som
Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Jeff Davis wrote:
>
>
>>Does the SQL standard provide no way to have a NULL character in a
>>string constant? Is single-quote the only special character?
>
>
> I don't think it forbids you from using the null character. It's not like
> the strings
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Does the SQL standard provide no way to have a NULL character in a
> string constant? Is single-quote the only special character?
I don't think it forbids you from using the null character. It's not like
the strings are zero terminated. Some encodings migh
The documentation about this is a little brief (reading from the
developer docs, section 4.1.2.1.).
Does the SQL standard provide no way to have a NULL character in a
string constant? Is single-quote the only special character?
If I have a system on 7.4 or 8.0 right now, what is the recommended
"
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 11:58:34AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> What might this be?
Whether to warn on '\' in non-E'' strings.
AFAIK Bruce wants to turn this to 'on' in 8.2.
--
marko
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the
Hello,
What might this be?
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandp
15 matches
Mail list logo
