Re: Speaking of breaking compatibility...standard_conforming_strings

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:07:02PM -0400, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I just noticed this comment in scan.l:
> > /*
> >  * GUC variables.  This is a DIRECT violation of the warning given at the
> >  * head of gram.y, ie flex/bison code must not depend on any GUC
> variables;
> >  * as such, changing their values can induce very unintuitive behavior.
> >  * But we shall have to live with it as a short-term thing until the
> switch
> >  * to SQL-standard string syntax is complete.
> >  */
> > int backslash_quote = BACKSLASH_QUOTE_SAFE_ENCODING;
> > bool escape_string_warning = true;
> > bool standard_conforming_strings = true;
>
> > I'm not exactly sure what else needs to happen to remove these forbidden
> > GUCs and if we are not prepared to do this now when will we ever be...
>
> Dunno, are you prepared to bet that nobody is turning off
> standard_conforming_strings anymore?
>
> In any case, we keep adding new violations of this rule (cf
> operator_precedence_warning) so I have little hope that it will ever be
> completely clean.
>
>
> ​I tend to hold the same position.  I'd probably update the last sentence of
> the comment to reflect that reality.

I changed it to:

* But we shall have to live with it until we can remove these variables.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +