Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #4027: backslash escapingnotdisabledinplpgsql

2009-04-13 Thread Kevin Grittner
Tom Lane wrote: > "Kevin Grittner" writes: >> a change to CREATE FUNCTION such that there is an implied SET >> standard_compliant_strings FROM CURRENT Hopefully obvious, I meant standard_conforming_strings. > it seems like a really bad idea. Then perhaps a note in the PL/pgSQL docs about t

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #4027: backslash escapingnotdisabledinplpgsql

2009-04-10 Thread Tom Lane
"Kevin Grittner" writes: > Well, that's a change I'm arguing for. That would require both the > plpgsql parser change Tom is talking about, and a change to CREATE > FUNCTION such that there is an implied SET standard_compliant_strings > FROM CURRENT -- which is something I've suggested a couple t

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #4027: backslash escapingnotdisabledinplpgsql

2009-04-10 Thread Kevin Grittner
Andrew Gierth wrote: > Surely what matters is the value of the GUC at the time that you did > the CREATE FUNCTION, not the value at the time you happen to be > calling it? Well, that's a change I'm arguing for. That would require both the plpgsql parser change Tom is talking about, and a chang