Re: Keyword classifications

On 1 January 2016 at 19:06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> I wrote:
> > Now, one line of thought here is that flatten_reloptions() is out of its
> > mind to not be worrying about quoting the reloption values. And perhaps
> > it is, but I think if we go that direction, we may be fighting similar
> > fires for awhile to come. psql's describe.c, for example, doesn't worry
> > about quoting anything when printing reloptions, and there's likely
> > similar code in third-party clients. Also, a solution like this would
> > do nothing for existing dump files.
>
> > The other line of thought is that we're already making an effort to allow
> > any keyword to appear as the value of a def_arg, and maybe we should try
> > to make that work 100% instead of only 90%.
>
> After further thought I believe that the right thing to do is pursue both
> these lines of attack. Adding quoting in flatten_reloptions() seems like
> a safely back-patchable fix for the original complaint, and it's really
> necessary anyway for reloption values that don't look like either an
> identifier or a number. The grammar allows any arbitrary string constant
> to be the original form of a reloption, and we have no good reason to
> assume that extension modules will constrain their custom reloptions to
> be one or the other. (I'm thinking we'd better be prepared to
> double-quote the option names, too, just in case.)
>
> The grammar fixes seem like a good thing to do in the long run, too,
> but there's little need to risk back-patching it since accepting
> col_name_keywords without quoting would be mostly a convenience issue.

All seems reasonable.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services