Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > plpgsql does not consider standard_conforming_strings --- it still uses > > backslash escaping in its function bodies regardless. Since the > > language itself is not standardized, I see no particular reason that > > standard_conforming_strings should govern it. > > I think plpgsql should behave either consistently with the rest of PostgreSQL > or with Oracle, which it is copied from. > > > I believe the reason for > > not changing it was that it seemed too likely to break existing > > functions, with potentially nasty consequences if they chanced to be > > security definers. > > Is this actually true or did we just forget it? :-)
I would like to add a TODO item for this, but I am concerned that people running functions with different standard_conforming_strings values would have function syntax errors on mismatch. Is that acceptable? -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
