On 1 January 2016 at 19:06, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I wrote: > > Now, one line of thought here is that flatten_reloptions() is out of its > > mind to not be worrying about quoting the reloption values. And perhaps > > it is, but I think if we go that direction, we may be fighting similar > > fires for awhile to come. psql's describe.c, for example, doesn't worry > > about quoting anything when printing reloptions, and there's likely > > similar code in third-party clients. Also, a solution like this would > > do nothing for existing dump files. > > > The other line of thought is that we're already making an effort to allow > > any keyword to appear as the value of a def_arg, and maybe we should try > > to make that work 100% instead of only 90%. > > After further thought I believe that the right thing to do is pursue both > these lines of attack. Adding quoting in flatten_reloptions() seems like > a safely back-patchable fix for the original complaint, and it's really > necessary anyway for reloption values that don't look like either an > identifier or a number. The grammar allows any arbitrary string constant > to be the original form of a reloption, and we have no good reason to > assume that extension modules will constrain their custom reloptions to > be one or the other. (I'm thinking we'd better be prepared to > double-quote the option names, too, just in case.) > > The grammar fixes seem like a good thing to do in the long run, too, > but there's little need to risk back-patching it since accepting > col_name_keywords without quoting would be mostly a convenience issue.
All seems reasonable. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
