Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > plpgsql does not consider standard_conforming_strings --- it still uses
> > backslash escaping in its function bodies regardless. Since the
> > language itself is not standardized, I see no particular reason that
> > standard_conforming_strings should govern it.
>
> I think plpgsql should behave either consistently with the rest of PostgreSQL
> or with Oracle, which it is copied from.
>
> > I believe the reason for
> > not changing it was that it seemed too likely to break existing
> > functions, with potentially nasty consequences if they chanced to be
> > security definers.
>
> Is this actually true or did we just forget it? :-)
I would like to add a TODO item for this, but I am concerned that people
running functions with different standard_conforming_strings values
would have function syntax errors on mismatch. Is that acceptable?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
