Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> Why is there a variadic replace() in this patch at all? It seems just
>> about entirely unrelated to the stated purpose of the patch, as well
>> as being of dubious usefulness.
> It used not to being exposed at the SQL level, but just an internal loop
> in pg_execute_sql_file() when using the placeholders enabled
> variant. Then Itagaki wanted me to expose internals so that he basically
> can implement the logics in SQL directly. It seems like we went a step
> too far in exposing this facility too. Agreed in removing it at the SQL
> level.
Well, actually, my next question was going to be about removing the
variadic substitution in pg_execute_string too. It's not apparent to me
that that function should have a rather lame substitution mechanism
hard-wired into it, when you can do the same thing with replace() in
front of it.
On the whole I'd prefer not to have any substitution functionality
hard-wired into pg_execute_file either, though I can see the argument
that it's necessary for practical use. Basically I'm concerned that
replace-equivalent behavior is not going to be satisfactory over the
long run: I think eventually we're going to need to think about
quoting/escaping behavior. So I think it's a bad idea to expose the
assumption that it'll be done that way at the SQL level.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
