On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote:
> I do think that whichever route we go, we're going to be stuck supporting
> the old version for a LONG time. A big part of why
> standard_conforming_strings was so ugly is users didn't have enough time to
> adjust. If we'd had that enabled by default for 4-5 releases it wouldn't
> have been nearly as much of an issue.

/me boggles.  I think you are confused about the history here.
standard_conforming_strings had a generously long phase-in period.

- The E'' syntax and the standard_conforming_strings GUC were added in
PostgreSQL 8.0.  The only legal value of standard_conforming_strings
was "false".

- In PostgreSQL 8.1, it became possible to set
standard_conforming_strings to "true", but the default was still

- In PostgreSQL 9.1, the default was changed to "true".

So there 6 major release from the time the GUC was added and 5 from
the time it became mutable before the default was flipped.   We've now
had 5 more since the default was changed to "true".  (No, it's not
time to remove the GUC yet.  At least not in my opinion.)

One thing that made changing standard_conforming_strings particularly
painful was that it had knock-on effects on many language-specific
drivers not maintained by the core project (or just plain not
maintained).  I don't think the language changes being proposed here
for PL/pgsql would have the same kind of impact, but some of them
would make it significantly harder to migrate to PostgreSQL from
Oracle, which some people might see as an anti-goal (as per other
nearby threads on making that easier).

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to