Re: Speaking of breaking compatibility...standard_conforming_strings

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:07:02PM -0400, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 
>     "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
>     > I just noticed this comment in scan.l:
>     > /*
>     >  * GUC variables.  This is a DIRECT violation of the warning given at the
>     >  * head of gram.y, ie flex/bison code must not depend on any GUC
>     variables;
>     >  * as such, changing their values can induce very unintuitive behavior.
>     >  * But we shall have to live with it as a short-term thing until the
>     switch
>     >  * to SQL-standard string syntax is complete.
>     >  */
>     > int backslash_quote = BACKSLASH_QUOTE_SAFE_ENCODING;
>     > bool escape_string_warning = true;
>     > bool standard_conforming_strings = true;
> 
>     > I'm not exactly sure what else needs to happen to remove these forbidden
>     > GUCs and if we are not prepared to do this now when will we ever be...
> 
>     Dunno, are you prepared to bet that nobody is turning off
>     standard_conforming_strings anymore?
> 
>     In any case, we keep adding new violations of this rule (cf
>     operator_precedence_warning) so I have little hope that it will ever be
>     completely clean.
> 
> 
> ​I tend to hold the same position.  I'd probably update the last sentence of
> the comment to reflect that reality.

I changed it to:
* But we shall have to live with it until we can remove these variables.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+                     Ancient Roman grave inscription +