I wrote:
> However ... I don't like the patch much. It seems to have left
> the code in a rather random state. Why, for example, didn't you
> keep all the code that constructs the "newline" value together?
After thinking about it a bit more, I don't see why you didn't just
s/strncmp/strncasecmp/ and call it good. The messiness seems to be
a result of your choice to replace the GUC's case as shown in the
file with the case used on the command line, which is not better
IMO. We don't change our mind about the canonical spelling of a
GUC because somebody varied the case in a SET command.
regards, tom lane
