On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 June 2010 17:52, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>>>> Why not? Surely we can restrict EXPLAIN's set of key names to be safe. >>> >>>> It seems to me that it would be easy for a future patch to break this >>>> by accident. >>> >>> Really? What likely key names would be in need of quoting? I can't >>> imagine accepting a field name that contains punctuation or leading >>> or trailing whitespace, for example. >> >> It seemed to me, in particular, that someone might use a # symbol, >> like "# of Iterations". >> > > Then the resulting XML tagname would be invalid too > I think they would soon realise/be told that it was a bad idea.
Hmm, you're right. Maybe we should go with your approach, then. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
