Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hmm ... considering that's the first thing in the release notes, I'm
> >> surprised Martin missed it. Maybe he was looking for something
> >> mentioning backslashes ... should we add a bit that specifically says
> >> that backslashes are now no-ops by default?
>
> > I added the word "backslash" before escapes in the attached applied
> > patch.
>
> Actually, I had something more like this in mind ...
Great.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> commit ea964a451e51a32b71d004d261874adb1e135066
> Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Date: Tue May 10 23:44:33 2011 -0400
>
> Be more explicit about the meaning of the change in standard_conforming_strings.
>
> diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/release-9.1.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/release-9.1.sgml
> index 7737381..280e0bb 100644
> --- a/doc/src/sgml/release-9.1.sgml
> +++ b/doc/src/sgml/release-9.1.sgml
> @@ -58,8 +58,9 @@
> </para>
>
> <para>
> - This removes a long-standing incompatibility with the SQL
> - standard; <link
> + By default, backslashes are now ordinary characters in string literals,
> + not escape characters. This change removes a long-standing
> + incompatibility with the SQL standard. <link
> linkend="guc-escape-string-warning"><varname>escape_string_warning</></link>
> has produced warnings about this usage for years. <literal>E''</>
> strings are the proper way to embed backslash escapes in strings and are
>
>
> regards, tom lane
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
