Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
what is wrong on GUC?
The idea of a GUC that allows security violations when it's set
differently than the application is expecting fills me with fear.
This is going to look the 7.3 autocommit fiasco look like a day
at the beach.
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It probably won't be any worse than when '' was rejected for an integer
0.
That analogy is *SO* far off the mark that I have to object.
Fooling with quoting rules will not simply cause clean failures, which
is what you got from
Tom Lane wrote:
What we are talking about here is an extremely significant change with
extremely serious consequences, and imagining that it is not will be
a recipe for disaster.
I also think that pgsql-patches is not the place to be discussing such
things... it needs a whole lot more
