Surafel Temesgen <surafel3...@gmail.com> writes: > This assignment is on todo list and has a benefit of providing an > additional defense against SQL-injection attacks.
This is on the todo list? Really? It seems unlikely to be worth the backwards-compatibility breakage. I certainly doubt that we could get away with unconditionally rejecting such cases with no "off" switch, as you have here. > Previous mailing list discussion is here > <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9236.1167968...@sss.pgh.pa.us> That message points out specifically that we *didn't* plan to do this. Perhaps back then (ten years ago) we could have gotten away with the compatibility breakage, but now I doubt it. 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
