Re: Speaking of breaking compatibility...standard_conforming_strings
От | David G. Johnston |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Speaking of breaking compatibility...standard_conforming_strings |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAKFQuwb18Gx7xF1qGnh2XWnrNp7MMBdpuP8M84jLCiH031Prgg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Speaking of breaking compatibility...standard_conforming_strings (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Speaking of breaking compatibility...standard_conforming_strings
Re: Speaking of breaking compatibility...standard_conforming_strings |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"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.
"We use them here due to the user-facing capability to change the parsing rules of SQL-standard string literals."
The switch is not likely to ever be "complete" and if so not likely in whatever period the future reader might consider "short-term".
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: