Re: GUC names in messages

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: GUC names in messages
Date: 2023-11-01 20:12:20
Message-ID: 22998fc0-93c2-48d2-b0f9-361cd5764695@eisentraut.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 01.11.23 10:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> And there's never been any
> real clarity about whether to quote GUC names, though certainly we're
> more likely to quote anything injected with %s. So that's why we have
> a mishmash right now.

I'm leaning toward not quoting GUC names. The quoting is needed in
places where the value can be arbitrary, to avoid potential confusion.
But the GUC names are well-known, and we wouldn't add confusing GUC
names like "table" or "not found" in the future.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2023-11-01 20:39:24 Re: Remove distprep
Previous Message a.rybakina 2023-11-01 20:09:25 Re: Not deleted mentions of the cleared path