
> > This also poses the biggest problem in terms of legacy compatibility.
> > Perhaps the answer is to add a runtime config option (and default it
> > to ANSI) and possibly deprecate the C escaping.
> 
> While I wouldn't necessarily object to a runtime option, I do object
> to both the other parts of your proposal ;-).  Backslash escaping is
> not broken; we aren't going to remove it or deprecate it, and I would
> vote against making it non-default.

When we are talking about the places where you need double escaping 
(once for parser, once for input function) to make it work, I would also 
say that that is very cumbersome (not broken, since it is thus documented) :-) 
I would also default to strict ANSI, but not depricate the escaping when set.
All imho of course.

Andreas

Wed, 8 May 2002 18:47:46 +0200
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Re: non-standard escapes in string literals 
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 06:47:46PM +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
> When we are talking about the places where you need double escaping 
> (once for parser, once for input function) to make it work, I would also 
> say that that is very cumbersome (not broken, since it is thus documented) :-) 
> I would also default to strict ANSI, but not depricate the escaping when set.
> All imho of course.

As the original reporter of this issue, I am gratified to hear it
acknowledged by the developers.  Thanks!  (I also apologize if I
exaggerated the pain caused, as apparently not many other people
have been bitten by this specific problem.  Well, it was painful for
me. ;-) )

I must say, though, that I remain bothered by the "not broken"
attitude.  There is an obvious standard for PostgreSQL to follow,
yet it is non-compliant in utterly trivial ways, which provide
marginal or no benefits.  Granted, changing long-standing defaults
may not be acceptible; but there is a big difference between, "it is
broken but we just can't change it for compatibility reasons", and,
"it is not broken".

It is my experience that most other free software projects take
standards compliance more seriously than PostgreSQL, and my strong
opinion that both the project and its users (not to mention the
whole SQL database industry, eventually) would benefit from better
support for the SQL standard.

Ok, I've said my peace.

Andrew

Wed, 8 May 2002 13:35:12 -0400
pimlott@idiomtech.com (Andrew Pimlott)
Re: non-standard escapes in string literals
> It is my experience that most other free software projects take
> standards compliance more seriously than PostgreSQL, and my strong
> opinion that both the project and its users (not to mention the
> whole SQL database industry, eventually) would benefit from better
> support for the SQL standard.

Ummm - I think you'd be hard pressed to find a open source db team more
committed to standards compliance.

Chris


Fri, 10 May 2002 09:57:06 +0800
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Re: non-standard escapes in string literals
Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 06:47:46PM +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
> > When we are talking about the places where you need double escaping 
> > (once for parser, once for input function) to make it work, I would also 
> > say that that is very cumbersome (not broken, since it is thus documented) :-) 
> > I would also default to strict ANSI, but not depricate the escaping when set.
> > All imho of course.
> 
> As the original reporter of this issue, I am gratified to hear it
> acknowledged by the developers.  Thanks!  (I also apologize if I
> exaggerated the pain caused, as apparently not many other people
> have been bitten by this specific problem.  Well, it was painful for
> me. ;-) )
> 
> I must say, though, that I remain bothered by the "not broken"
> attitude.  There is an obvious standard for PostgreSQL to follow,
> yet it is non-compliant in utterly trivial ways, which provide
> marginal or no benefits.  Granted, changing long-standing defaults
> may not be acceptible; but there is a big difference between, "it is
> broken but we just can't change it for compatibility reasons", and,
> "it is not broken".
> 
> It is my experience that most other free software projects take
> standards compliance more seriously than PostgreSQL, and my strong
> opinion that both the project and its users (not to mention the
> whole SQL database industry, eventually) would benefit from better
> support for the SQL standard.
> 
> Ok, I've said my peace.

Yes, these are good points.  Our big problem is that we use backslash
for two things, one for escaping single quotes and for escaping standard
C characters, like \n.  While we can use the standard-supported '' to
insert single quotes, what should we do with \n?  The problem is
switching to standard ANSI solution reduces our functionality.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Sun, 2 Jun 2002 23:25:36 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: non-standard escapes in string literals