Tom Lane wrote:
> Oliver Jowett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> I have received very few replies to my suggestion that we implement E''
> >> for escaped strings, so eventually, after a few major releases, we can
> >> have '' treat backslashes literally like the SQL standar
AgentM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I am really hoping for is that PQexecParams() [in later versions
> of libpq] can figure it out for itself so client code doesn't need
> fixing. That is the plan, right?
Out-of-line parameters are not an issue at all --- only string literals
embedded in
What I am really hoping for is that PQexecParams() [in later versions
of libpq] can figure it out for itself so client code doesn't need
fixing. That is the plan, right?
On Jun 20, 2005, at 11:57 PM, Oliver Jowett wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have received very few replies to my suggesti
Oliver Jowett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I have received very few replies to my suggestion that we implement E''
>> for escaped strings, so eventually, after a few major releases, we can
>> have '' treat backslashes literally like the SQL standard requires.
> Just checki
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I have received very few replies to my suggestion that we implement E''
> for escaped strings, so eventually, after a few major releases, we can
> have '' treat backslashes literally like the SQL standard requires.
Just checking: with this plan, a client needs to know what
[ BCC to general. ]
I have received very few replies to my suggestion that we implement E''
for escaped strings, so eventually, after a few major releases, we can
have '' treat backslashes literally like the SQL standard requires.
I assume this is because most people say, "yea, it is going to be
