Ken Johanson wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > E'' is more a marker than a type. I realize making E a type might work,
> > but it seems unusual.
> >
> > What we could do is backpatch E'' to 8.0.X as a no-op like it will be in
> > 8.1.
> >
>
> Bruce,
>
> Is it possible in the 8.1 betas to 'swit
Bruce Momjian wrote:
E'' is more a marker than a type. I realize making E a type might work,
but it seems unusual.
What we could do is backpatch E'' to 8.0.X as a no-op like it will be in
8.1.
Bruce,
Is it possible in the 8.1 betas to 'switch on' on the standard SQL
escape behavior? This i
Tom Lane wrote:
> Having said that, though, I'm agin back-porting this. We don't
> back-patch feature additions, and this can hardly be described as
> a bug fix.
>
I'm not for or against back porting this feature. I basically want to
know if my plan (appended to this email) was a sane way to wri
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I'm asking about is, are there going to be user applications that were
> working fine in previous versions but suddenly start breaking when this change
> is made? Does that affect your decision in whether to backport this to 8.0.x?
It's worth noting th
Greg Stark wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > > What happens if someone already has a type called "e" ?
> >
> > That would be the same problem as someone having a type 'b' or 'x'. It
> > would still work, but not for casts like text'str'. Those letters are
> > caught in the lexer before gett
Bruce Momjian writes:
> > What happens if someone already has a type called "e" ?
>
> That would be the same problem as someone having a type 'b' or 'x'. It
> would still work, but not for casts like text'str'. Those letters are
> caught in the lexer before getting into to the parser.
What I'
Greg Stark wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > E'' is more a marker than a type. I realize making E a type might work,
> > but it seems unusual.
> >
> > What we could do is backpatch E'' to 8.0.X as a no-op like it will be in
> > 8.1.
>
> What happens if someone already has a type called "
Bruce Momjian writes:
> E'' is more a marker than a type. I realize making E a type might work,
> but it seems unusual.
>
> What we could do is backpatch E'' to 8.0.X as a no-op like it will be in
> 8.1.
What happens if someone already has a type called "e" ?
--
greg
-
E'' is more a marker than a type. I realize making E a type might work,
but it seems unusual.
What we could do is backpatch E'' to 8.0.X as a no-op like it will be in
8.1.
---
Jeff Davis wrote:
> >From what I've read, it l
>From what I've read, it looks like 8.1 will introduce the E'' escape
string, and eventually postgresql will change the normal '' strings to
be more SQL-compliant.
If I wanted to start being forwards-compatible right now, and I have
existing databases in 7.4 and 8.0, my idea was to create a type E
10 matches
Mail list logo
