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
"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
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