Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 14:03, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Alex Hunsaker <bada...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 13:42, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I stand by the position that it's way too late in the cycle for
> > insufficiently-thought-out proposals for major behavioral changes.
>
> After skimming the thread Bruce linked:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-04/msg00512.php
>
> It certainly seems "insufficiently-thought-out". :(
Is this still true? When we changed plpgsql so it shared the scanner
with the backend scanner, does this issue no longer apply, i.e.
consider honoring standard_conforming_strings in PL/pgSQL function
bodies?
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
